Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06015/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06015-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 10-6015

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

VERRON MACARTHUR JOHNSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District 

Judge. (3:03-cr-00318-HEH-1)(3:09-cr-00318-HEH-1)

Submitted: March 16, 2010 Decided: March 24, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Verron MacArthur Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Sinclair 

Duffey, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-6015 Doc: 5 Filed: 03/24/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Verron MacArthur Johnson seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order treating his motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 (a), 

(b) as a successive 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009) motion, 

and dismissing it on that basis. The order is not appealable 

unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of 

appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); Reid v. Angelone, 

369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). 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) 

(2006). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating 

that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the 

constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or 

wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district 

court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 

322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); 

Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). 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.

Additionally, we construe Johnson’s notice of appeal 

and informal brief as an application to file a second or 

successive motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255. United States v. 

Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to 

Appeal: 10-6015 Doc: 5 Filed: 03/24/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a 

prisoner must assert claims based on either: (1) newly 

discovered evidence, not previously discoverable by due 

diligence, that would be sufficient to establish by clear and 

convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no 

reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the 

offense; or (2) a new rule of constitutional law, previously 

unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on 

collateral review. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255(h) (West Supp. 2009). 

Johnson’s claims do not satisfy either of these criteria. 

Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 

motion.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 10-6015 Doc: 5 Filed: 03/24/2010 Pg: 3 of 3