Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06244/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06244-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6244

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JAMES BOWERS JOHNSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Lynchburg. Norman K. Moon, Senior

District Judge. (6:12-cr-00015-NKM-RSB-1; 6:15-cv-80797-NKMRSB)

Submitted: August 18, 2016 Decided: August 22, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Bowers Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Katie Bagley, Gregory 

Victor Davis, Samuel Robert Lyons, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF 

JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6244 Doc: 21 Filed: 08/22/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

James Bowers 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 

Appeal: 16-6244 Doc: 21 Filed: 08/22/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 16-6244 Doc: 21 Filed: 08/22/2016 Pg: 3 of 3