Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06356/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06356-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Johnny Lee Felder
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6356

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JOHNNY LEE FELDER, a/k/a Cool Daddy,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. 

(4:03-cr-00283-TLW-1; 4:07-cv-70067-TLW)

Submitted: June 1, 2010 Decided: June 9, 2010

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam 

opinion.

Johnny Lee Felder, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker 

Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-6356 Doc: 8 Filed: 06/09/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Johnny Lee Felder, a federal prisoner, appeals the 

district court’s order denying relief on his petition for writ 

of coram nobis or audita querela brought under 28 U.S.C. § 1651 

(2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of a petition for 

coram nobis or audita querela for the reasons stated by the 

district court. See United States v. Felder, No. 4:03-cr-00283-

TLW-1 (S.D.C. Jan. 28, 2010).

The district court also considered Felder’s motion as 

a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion challenging the prior denial of 

his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009), and 

denied relief. That portion of the order is not appealable 

unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of 

appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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). 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 

Appeal: 10-6356 Doc: 8 Filed: 06/09/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

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

Felder has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

dismiss the portion of the appeal construing Felder’s claims as 

a Rule 60(b) motion relating to the prior denial of his 28 

U.S.C.A. § 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.

AFFIRMED IN PART;

DISMISSED IN PART

Appeal: 10-6356 Doc: 8 Filed: 06/09/2010 Pg: 3 of 3