Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Antonio Johnson, 17-7112 (2017)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 17-7112 Visitors: 12
Filed: Dec. 22, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-7112 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ANTONIO JOHNSON, Defendant - Appellant.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 Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:14-cr-00080-REP-DJN-1; 3:15- cv-00678-REP-DJN) Submitted: December 19, 2017 Decided: December 22, 2017 Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion
More
                                    UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 17-7112


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
Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:14-cr-00080-REP-DJN-1; 3:15-
cv-00678-REP-DJN)


Submitted: December 19, 2017                                Decided: December 22, 2017


Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Antonio Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. David Thomas Maguire, Assistant United States
Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) (2012). 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 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 
537 U.S. 322
,

336-38 (2003). 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 because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                               DISMISSED




                                             2

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer