US v. Paul Johnson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case numbers: 5:10-cr-00005-SGW-1, 5:12-cv-80546-SGW-RSB. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999148870]. Mailed to: Paul Johnson. [13-6201]

Download PDF
Appeal: 13-6201 Doc: 8 Filed: 07/12/2013 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6201 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. PAUL MICHAEL JOHNSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (5:10-cr-00005-SGW-1; 5:12-cv-80546-SGW-RSB) Submitted: June 20, 2013 Decided: July 12, 2013 Before DIAZ, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Paul Michael Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Jeb Thomas Terrien, Assistant United States Attorney, Harrisonburg, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 13-6201 Doc: 8 Filed: 07/12/2013 Pg: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: Paul Michael Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying 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.” (2006). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this jurists would reasonable standard find by that demonstrating the district that 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). denies relief demonstrate on both procedural that the When the district court grounds, dispositive the prisoner procedural must 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 and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument 2 because the facts and legal Appeal: 13-6201 Doc: 8 contentions Filed: 07/12/2013 are adequately Pg: 3 of 3 presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?