United States v. Johnson , 120 F. App'x 979 ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 04-7620
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    JOSEPH JOHNSON, JR.,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond.  Robert E. Payne, District
    Judge. (CR-01-248; CA-03-985)
    Submitted:   January 27, 2005             Decided:   February 4, 2005
    Before LUTTIG and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Joseph Johnson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Michael Cornell Wallace,
    OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Joseph Johnson, Jr., a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal
    the district court’s order denying relief on his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
    (2000) motion.      An appeal may not be taken from the final order in
    a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues
    a certificate of appealability.           
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(1) (2000).                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)     (2000).      A    prisoner    satisfies        this    standard     by
    demonstrating       that    reasonable     jurists       would      find       that   his
    constitutional      claims     are   debatable     and     that    any     dispositive
    procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or
    wrong.     See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 
    537 U.S. 322
    , 336 (2003);
    Slack v. McDaniel, 
    529 U.S. 473
    , 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 
    252 F.3d 676
    , 683 (4th Cir. 2001).              We have independently reviewed the
    record   and     conclude     that   Johnson    has   not    made    the       requisite
    showing.       Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and
    dismiss the appeal.           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.
    DISMISSED
    - 2 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 04-7620

Citation Numbers: 120 F. App'x 979

Filed Date: 2/4/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021