Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06778/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06778-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Marquis Johnson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6778

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JOHN MARQUIS JOHNSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. 

(4:08-cr-01258-RBH-5; 4:14-cv-01584-RBH)

Submitted: October 29, 2015 Decided: November 10, 2015

Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Marquis Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Frank Daley, 

Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, 

for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6778 Doc: 13 Filed: 11/10/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

John Marquis Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s 

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

denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend the 

judgment. 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 Johnson’s motion for a certificate of appealability and 

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the 

Appeal: 15-6778 Doc: 13 Filed: 11/10/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-6778 Doc: 13 Filed: 11/10/2015 Pg: 3 of 3