US v. Lester Johnson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:95-cr-00488-JFA-10,3:12-cv-01510-JFA. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999117515]. Mailed to: Lester Johnson. [13-6435]

Appeal: 13-6435

Doc: 7

Filed: 05/29/2013

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6435

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LESTER JOHNSON, a/k/a Main,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (3:95-cr-00488-JFA-10; 3:12-cv-01510-JFA)

Submitted:

May 23, 2013

Before MOTZ * and
Circuit Judge.

AGEE,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

and

May 29, 2013

HAMILTON,

Senior

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lester Johnson, Appellant Pro Se.
Sean Kittrell, Assistant
United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina; Jane Barrett
Taylor, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South

*

Judge Motz did not participate in consideration of this
case. The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 46(d).

Appeal: 13-6435

Doc: 7

Filed: 05/29/2013

Pg: 2 of 4

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 13-6435

Doc: 7

Filed: 05/29/2013

Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Lester Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.
2012) motion.
justice

or

The order is not appealable unless a circuit

judge

issues

a

certificate

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006).

of

appealability.

28

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

Cockrell,

(2000);

(2003).

see

Miller-El

v.

537

U.S.

322,

336-38

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 and dismiss the appeal.
We

dispense

with

oral

argument

3

because

the

facts

and

legal

Appeal: 13-6435

Doc: 7

contentions

Filed: 05/29/2013

are

adequately

Pg: 4 of 4

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

4