US v. William Johnson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--updating certificate of appealability status Originating case number: 4:10-cr-00941-RBH-8,4:13-cv-01924-RBH Copies to all parties and the district court. [999550195]. Mailed to: William Johnson. [14-7673]

Appeal: 14-7673

Doc: 7

Filed: 03/20/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7673

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WILLIAM JOE JOHNSON,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(4:10-cr-00941-RBH-8; 4:13-cv-01924-RBH)

Submitted:

March 17, 2015

Decided:

March 20, 2015

Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Joe Johnson, Appellant Pro Se.
Alfred William Walker
Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7673

Doc: 7

Filed: 03/20/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
William Joe Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and
denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration.
The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
issue

absent

“a

prisoner

the

See

28

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not
showing

of

the

denial

of

a

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).

district

court

satisfies

this

jurists

would

reasonable

appealability.

substantial

constitutional right.”
When

of

denies

relief

standard
find

by

that

on

the

merits,

demonstrating

the

district

a

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.
dispense

with

oral

argument

because

2

the

facts

and

We

legal

Appeal: 14-7673

Doc: 7

contentions

Filed: 03/20/2015

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

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

3