UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7541
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SAMUEL LARELL ANDERSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior
District Judge. (0:04-cr-00353-CMC-3)
Submitted: February 25, 2016 Decided: March 1, 2016
Before SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Samuel Larell Anderson, Appellant Pro Se. Beth Drake, Jimmie
Ewing, William Kenneth Witherspoon, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Samuel Larell Anderson appeals the district court’s order
denying his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) (2012). The district court denied § 3582 relief
because it found that Anderson was not entitled to a sentence
reduction under Guidelines Amendment 782. The district court
also noted that, to the extent Anderson attempted to challenge
his sentence as originally imposed by the district court, the
motion was a successive and unauthorized 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012)
motion over which the district court lacked jurisdiction. We
affirm in part, and dismiss in part.
As to the district court’s denial of relief under
§ 3582(c)(2), we have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm this portion of the district
court’s order for the reasons stated by the district court. See
United States v. Anderson, No. 0:04-cr-00353-CMC-3 (D.S.C. filed
Sept. 15, 2015, entered Sept. 16, 2015).
To the extent that the district court construed Anderson’s
challenge to his original sentence as a successive and
unauthorized habeas claim, that portion of the district court’s
order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues
a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B)
(2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
2
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). 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 right. Slack, 529 U.S.
at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and
conclude that Anderson has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss
the appeal, in part.
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.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART
3