United States of America v. Wallace M. Bryant, Jr.

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-7067
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
WALLACE M. BRYANT, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (8:13-cr-00121-HMH-1; 8:16-cv-02189-HMH)
Submitted: December 15, 2016 Decided: December 20, 2016
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Wallace M. Bryant, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Stanley D. Ragsdale,
Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina,
William Jacob Watkins, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Wallace M. Bryant, Jr., seeks to appeal the district
court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012)
motion and his subsequent Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. The
orders are 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 (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
Bryant has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny
a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We
further deny Bryant’s motion for a sentence reduction. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

-- 2 of 3 --

3
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --