United States v. Antonio Johnson ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •                                      UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 20-6815
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    ANTONIO JOHNSON,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
    Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (4:14-cr-00059-RAJ-RJK-6,
    4:20-cv-00014-RAJ-RJK)
    Submitted: October 26, 2020                                  Decided: November 6, 2020
    Before MOTZ, RICHARDSON, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Antonio Johnson, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Antonio Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     motion. The 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, 
    137 S. Ct. 759
    , 773-74 (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 Johnson has not
    made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Johnson’s motion for a certificate of
    appealability, denying his motion to appoint counsel, 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
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 20-6815

Filed Date: 11/6/2020

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2020