653 F. App'x 215
4th Cir.
2016

IN RE: Kunta Kenta REDD, Petitioner.

No. 16-1429

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 23, 2016. Decided: June 28, 2016

Kunta Kenta Redd, Petitioner Pro Se.

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Kunta Kenta Redd petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court has unduly delayed in ruling on his motion for reduction of sentence. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. We conclude that the present record does not reveal undue delay in the district court. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and deny the mandamus petition. 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.

PETITION DENIED

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony Vonn HARRIS, a/k/a Anthony Vonne Harris, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-6106

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 23, 2016. Decided: June 28, 2016

Anthony Vonn Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Clifton Thomas Barrett, Harry L. Hobgood, Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Vonn Harris seeks to appeal the district court‘s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Harris has not made the requisite showing.* Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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

Frederick L. HOWELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Alan WILSON, Attorney General for the State of South Carolina, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-6111

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 23, 2016. Decided: June 28, 2016

Frederick L. Howell, Appellant Pro Se.

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Notes

*
Specifically, the district court‘s dispositive conclusion—that our decision in United States v. Mungro, 754 F.3d 267 (4th Cir. 2014), foreclosed Harris’ argument that the Supreme Court‘s holding in Johnson v. United States, — U.S. —, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015), invalidated his armed career criminal designation—is not debatable.