United States v. Reshod Everett

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6911 Doc: 10 Filed: 03/17/2026 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-6911

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RESHOD JAMAR EVERETT, a/k/a Kool, a/k/a Kool-Aid, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:20-cr-00333-D-1; 5:24-cv-00619-D)

Submitted: March 12, 2026 Decided: March 17, 2026

Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Reshod Jamar Everett, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6911 Doc: 10 Filed: 03/17/2026 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Reshod Jamar Everett seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. First, to the extent that the document construed as Everett’s informal brief is also a motion for designation of the record on appeal, we deny it, as the listed documents are already a part of the record. The district court’s order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (2017). 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Everett has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, to the extent that the document construed as a supplemental informal brief is also styled as a motion for a certificate of appealability, we deny it 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