Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 22 views

    United States v. Raymond Chestnut, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes two appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina regarding post-judgment motions filed by Raymond Edward Chestnut related to his criminal conviction. The appeals court affirmed the district court's denial of Chestnut's Rule 35 motion in appeal No. 15-6636, finding no reversible error. In appeal No. 15-6641, the appeals court dismissed Chestnut's appeal of the district court's dismissal of his Section 2255 motion as successive and unauthorized, as it denied issuing a certificate of appealability.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Raymond Chestnut, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    22 views4 pages
    This document summarizes two appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina regarding post-judgment motions filed by Raymond Edward Chestnut related to his criminal conviction. The appeals court affirmed the district court's denial of Chestnut's Rule 35 motion in appeal No. 15-6636, finding no reversible error. In appeal No. 15-6641, the appeals court dismissed Chestnut's appeal of the district court's dismissal of his Section 2255 motion as successive and unauthorized, as it denied issuing a certificate of appealability.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2015-10-19 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 15-6636

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes two appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina regarding post-judgment motions filed by Raymond Edward Chestnut related to his criminal conviction. The appeals court affirmed the district court's denial of Chestnut's Rule 35 motion in appeal No. 15-6636, finding no reversible error. In appeal No. 15-6641, the appeals court dismissed Chestnut's appeal of the district court's dismissal of his Section 2255 motion as successive and unauthorized, as it denied issuing a certificate of appealability.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    22 views4 pages

    United States v. Raymond Chestnut, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes two appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina regarding post-judgment motions filed by Raymond Edward Chestnut related to his criminal conviction. The appeals court affirmed the district court's denial of Chestnut's Rule 35 motion in appeal No. 15-6636, finding no reversible error. In appeal No. 15-6641, the appeals court dismissed Chestnut's appeal of the district court's dismissal of his Section 2255 motion as successive and unauthorized, as it denied issuing a certificate of appealability.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    You are on page 1of 4

    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

    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.

    PER CURIAM:
    These

    consolidated

    appeals

    challenge

    two

    district

    court

    orders denying relief on several postjudgment motions concerning


    Raymond

    Edward

    Chestnuts

    criminal

    judgment.

    We

    affirm

    the

    district courts 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 Fed. R. Crim. P. 35 motion.
    and find no reversible error.
    In

    No.

    courts

    15-6641,

    order

    Accordingly, we affirm.

    Chestnut

    dismissing

    We have reviewed the record

    his

    seeks
    28

    to

    U.S.C.

    appeal

    2255

    the

    (2012)

    without prejudice as successive and unauthorized.


    not

    appealable

    unless

    circuit

    certificate of appealability.
    A

    certificate

    of

    justice

    or

    district
    motion

    The order is

    judge

    issues

    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).

    appealability

    will

    not

    issue

    absent

    substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.


    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2) (2012).
    relief

    on

    the

    demonstrating
    district
    debatable

    merits,
    that

    courts
    or

    prisoner

    reasonable

    assessment

    wrong.

    When the district court denies

    Slack

    satisfies

    jurists

    this

    would

    of

    the

    v.

    McDaniel,

    standard

    find

    constitutional
    529

    U.S.

    by

    that

    the

    claims

    is

    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

    claim of the denial of a constitutional right.

    debatable

    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

    You might also like