United States v. Hank Johnson , 546 F. App'x 246 ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7008
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
HANK AARON JOHNSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:06-cr-00185-RJC-1; 3:09-cv-00477-
RJC)
Submitted: October 31, 2013 Decided: November 20, 2013
Before WILKINSON, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Hank Aaron Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray,
Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina;
Dana Owen Washington, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Hank Aaron Johnson seeks to appeal the district
court’s order dismissing as successive his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)
motion for reconsideration of the denial of relief on his 28
U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2013) 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) (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 Johnson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly,
we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Johnson’s motion to
supplement the record, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with
2
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
3