Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07890/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07890-0/pdf.json

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

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7890

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JOHNNY LEE WESLEY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., 

Senior District Judge. (1:97-cr-00382-HCM-2)

Submitted: March 17, 2015 Decided: March 20, 2015

Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed in part, dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam 

opinion.

Johnny Lee Wesley, Appellant Pro Se. James L. Trump, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7890 Doc: 11 Filed: 03/20/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Johnny Lee Wesley seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his petition for writ of error coram 

nobis and denying as successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) 

motion. Regarding Wesley’s petition for writ of error coram 

nobis, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. United States v. Wesley, No. 1:97-cr-00382-HCM-2 (E.D. 

Va. Oct. 29, 2014). 

Regarding Wesley’s appeal of the § 2255 motion, the order 

is 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 

Appeal: 14-7890 Doc: 11 Filed: 03/20/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Wesley has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal of the 

§ 2255 motion. 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.

AFFIRMED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART

Appeal: 14-7890 Doc: 11 Filed: 03/20/2015 Pg: 3 of 3