Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07932/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07932-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 15-7932

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

LARRY FRANKIE JOHNSON, a/k/a Fats,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., 

Senior District Judge. (1:11-cr-00359-JAB-2; 1:13-cv-00725-JABLPA)

Submitted: February 23, 2016 Decided: February 26, 2016

Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Larry Frankie Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Randall Stuart Galyon, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Angela Hewlett Miller,

Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, 

for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7932 Doc: 7 Filed: 02/26/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Larry Frankie Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s 

orders accepting the recommendations of the magistrate judge and 

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The 

orders are 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: 15-7932 Doc: 7 Filed: 02/26/2016 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: 15-7932 Doc: 7 Filed: 02/26/2016 Pg: 3 of 3