US v. Johnson

Filing 920061018

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-7074

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JAMIE ALEXANDER JOHNSON, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Norman K. Moon, District Judge. (3:03-cr-00026-nkm; 7:06-cv-00015-nkm)

Submitted:

October 4, 2006

Decided:

October 18, 2006

Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jamie Alexander Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. William Frederick Gould, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Jamie Alexander Johnson seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion as untimely. judge The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

issues

§ 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 any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (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 We dispense with oral

appealability and dismiss the appeal.

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 -