United States v. Bobby Johnson

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7654

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

BOBBY LEON JOHNSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Martin K. Reidinger, District Judge. (3:01-cr-00210-MR-1; 3:16-cv-00275- MR)

Submitted: March 10, 2020 Decided: March 13, 2020

Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bobby Leon Johnson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Bobby Leon Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting the

Government’s motion to dismiss his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2018) 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) (2018). 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) (2018).

When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 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 a certificate of appealability 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