UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-6200
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RANDY RONDELL SMITH,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Robert G. Doumar, Senior
District Judge. (4:04-cr-00093-RGD-TEM-1; 4:11-cv-00123-RGD)
Submitted: June 25, 2013 Decided: July 12, 2013
Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Randy Rondell Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward Bradenham,
II, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Randy Rondell Smith appeals the district court’s
orders denying relief on his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006)
motion for reduction of sentence and denying his subsequent
motion for reconsideration. Smith insists on appeal that his
motion for reconsideration, in which he challenges his guilty
plea, should have been construed as an amendment to his
28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2013) motion, and we treat the
court’s denial of the motion for reconsideration as also denying
§ 2255 relief to Smith.
An order denying relief under § 2255 is not appealable
unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of
appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate
of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner
satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists
would find that the district court’s assessment of the
constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel,
529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller–El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S.
322, 336–38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on
procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the
dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion
states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional
2
right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484–85. We have independently
reviewed the record and conclude that Smith has not made the
requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal in part.
With respect to the district court’s order denying
Smith’s § 3582(c)(2) motion, we have reviewed the record and
find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the
reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Smith,
No. 4:04-cr-00093-RGD-TEM-1 (E.D. Va. July 11, 2012).
We also conclude that the district court lacked the
authority to revisit its earlier order denying § 3582(c)(2)
relief to Smith. United States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233, 235–36
(4th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s
denial of Smith’s motion for reconsideration on that basis.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED IN PART;
AFFIRMED IN PART
3