US v. Neil C. Johnson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to expedite decision as moot [999352805-2], denying Motion to expedite decision as moot [999352804-2]; Originating case number: 4:07-cr-00900-RBH-1,4:10-cv-70246-RBH. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999442806]. Mailed to: Neil Johnson. [14-6398]

Appeal: 14-6398

Doc: 10

Filed: 09/25/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6398

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
NEIL CALVIN JOHNSON,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(4:07-cr-00900-RBH-1; 4:10-cv-70246-RBH)

Submitted:

September 23, 2014

Decided:

September 25, 2014

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Neil Calvin Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. William Norman Nettles,
United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-6398

Doc: 10

Filed: 09/25/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Neil

Calvin

Johnson

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

court’s order denying, as successive, his motion to amend his 28
U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.
a

circuit

justice

or

The order is not appealable unless
judge

issues

a

certificate

appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).

of

A certificate

of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right.”
(2012).

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

both

on

procedural

that

the

When the district court

grounds,

dispositive

the

prisoner

procedural

ruling

must
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.

The district

court lacked jurisdiction to consider Johnson’s motion to amend
his § 2255 motion because it was a successive and unauthorized

2

Appeal: 14-6398

§ 2255

Doc: 10

Filed: 09/25/2014

motion. ∗

Pg: 3 of 3

Accordingly,

we

deny

a

certificate

of

appealability, deny as moot Johnson’s motion to expedite, and
dismiss the appeal.
facts

and

materials

legal
before

We dispense with oral argument because the

contentions

are

adequately

this

and

argument

court

presented

would

not

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.

DISMISSED

∗

In the absence of pre-filing authorization from this
court, the district court lacks jurisdiction to hear a
successive § 2255 motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) (2012).

3