United States v. Antonio Johnson

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: November 6, 2020
• Docket: 20-6815
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-6815

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ANTONIO JOHNSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (4:14-cr-00059-RAJ-RJK-6, 4:20-cv-00014-RAJ-RJK)

Submitted: October 26, 2020 Decided: November 6, 2020

Before MOTZ, RICHARDSON, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Antonio Johnson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Antonio Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28

U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues

a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s

assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct.

759, 773-74 (2017). 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. Gonzalez v.

Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Johnson has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Johnson’s motion for a certificate of

appealability, denying his motion to appoint counsel, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED