UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6636
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RAYMOND EDWARD CHESTNUT, a/k/a Snoop, a/k/a Ray,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 15-6641
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RAYMOND EDWARD CHESTNUT, a/k/a Snoop, a/k/a Ray,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
of South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District
Judge. (4:05-cr-01044-RBH-1)
Submitted: October 15, 2015 Decided: October 19, 2015
Amended: November 18, 2016
Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
No. 15-6636 affirmed, and No. 15-6641, dismissed by unpublished
per curiam opinion.
Raymond Edward Chestnut, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Frank Daley,
Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina;
Arthur Bradley Parham, Assistant United States Attorney,
Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
These consolidated appeals challenge two district court
orders denying relief on several postjudgment motions concerning
Raymond Edward Chestnut’s criminal judgment. We affirm the
district court’s order in No. 15-6636, and dismiss the appeal in
No. 15-6641.
Turning first to No. 15-6636, Chestnut appeals the denial
of his motion. We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm.
In No. 15-6641, Chestnut seeks to appeal the district
court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion
without prejudice as successive and unauthorized. The 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.”
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
3
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
Chestnut has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal in
No. 15-6641.
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.
No. 15-6636 AFFIRMED
No. 15-6641 DISMISSED
4