Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06803/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06803-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Corey E. Johnson
Appellant
Loretta K. Kelly
Appellee
United States of America

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6803

COREY E. JOHNSON,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

LORETTA K. KELLY, Warden, Sussex I State Prison,

Respondent – Appellee,

and

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, District 

Judge; James R. Spencer, Senior District Judge. (3:07-cv-00731-

JRS)

Submitted: August 6, 2015 Decided: August 14, 2015

Before GREGORY and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Corey E. Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Leah A. Darron, OFFICE OF 

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Appeal: 15-6803 Doc: 10 Filed: 08/14/2015 Pg: 1 of 4
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6803 Doc: 10 Filed: 08/14/2015 Pg: 2 of 4
3

PER CURIAM:

Corey E. Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s 

orders denying his most recent Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for 

reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on 

his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition, and denying 

reconsideration. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit 

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012); 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) (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 petition 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, deny leave to proceed in 

Appeal: 15-6803 Doc: 10 Filed: 08/14/2015 Pg: 3 of 4
4

forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-6803 Doc: 10 Filed: 08/14/2015 Pg: 4 of 4