United States v. Bryant Pride

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
United States v. Bryant Pride, 487 F. App'x 120 (4th Cir. 2012)

United States v. Bryant Pride

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Reference

Status
Unpublished