UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-6613
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BRYANT KELLY PRIDE, a/k/a Bryan Kelly Pride,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, District
Judge. (1:07-cr-00020-JPJ-1)
Submitted: October 19, 2012 Decided: November 7, 2012
Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Bryant Kelly Pride, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer R. Bockhorst,
Zachary T. Lee, Assistant United States Attorneys, Abingdon,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Bryant Kelly Pride appeals the district court’s order
denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for a sentence
reduction based on Amendment 750 to the crack cocaine Sentencing
Guidelines. Pride also seeks to appeal the district court’s
order treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) and 15(c) motions as a
successive 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion, and
dismissing on that basis.
With regard to the § 3582 denial of relief, we review
the district court’s decision for abuse of discretion; however,
“[w]e review de novo . . . a court’s conclusion on the scope of
its legal authority under § 3582(c)(2).” United States v. Munn,
595 F.3d 183, 186 (4th Cir. 2010). As the district court
properly found, Pride was sentenced to the statutory mandatory
minimum term of imprisonment and therefore is not eligible for a
reduction via § 3582(c)(2). See id. at 187 (“[A] defendant who
was convicted of a crack offense but sentenced pursuant to a
mandatory statutory minimum sentence is ineligible for a
reduction under § 3582(c)(2).”) (citing United States v. Hood,
556 F.3d 226, 235–36 (4th Cir. 2009)). Accordingly, we affirm
for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v.
Pride, No. 1:07-cr-00020-JPJ-1 (W.D. Va. Feb. 29, 2012; filed
Mar. 1, 2012 & entered Mar. 2, 2012).
2
Turning to the district court’s construction of
Pride’s post-judgment motions as a successive § 2255 motion, and
its dismissal of that motion, the court’s dismissal order 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) (2006). 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 Pride has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss this portion of
the appeal.
Additionally, we construe Pride’s notice of appeal and
informal brief as an application to file a second or successive
3
§ 2255 motion. United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208
(4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a
successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on
either: (1) newly discovered evidence that clearly establishes
innocence, or (2) a new, previously unavailable rule of
constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral
review by the Supreme Court. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255(h). Pride’s
claims do not satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore, we
deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART
4