Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-08188/USCOURTS-ca4-09-08188-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rozell Alonza Johnson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-8188

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ROZELL ALONZA JOHNSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Robert E. Maxwell,

Senior District Judge. (3:04-cr-00040-REM-JES-1; 3:07-cv-00132-

REM-JES)

Submitted: June 4, 2010 Decided: June 21, 2010

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

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rozell Alonza Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Oliver Mucklow, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 09-8188 Doc: 8 Filed: 06/21/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Rozell Alonza Johnson seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order accepting in part and rejecting in part the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 

28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion. 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 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 contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

Appeal: 09-8188 Doc: 8 Filed: 06/21/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 09-8188 Doc: 8 Filed: 06/21/2010 Pg: 3 of 3