Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06561/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06561-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Johnnie Butler
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6561

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

JOHNNIE BUTLER, a/k/a JR,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. David A. Faber, Senior District Judge. 

(1:08-cr-00381-DAF-1; 1:12-cv-03468-DAF)

Submitted: October 17, 2016 Decided: October 28, 2016

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Johnnie Butler, Appellant Pro Se. Christine Marie Celeste, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Joshua Thomas Ferrentino, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6561 Doc: 9 Filed: 10/28/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Johnnie Butler seeks to appeal the district court’s orders

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

Butler 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

Appeal: 16-6561 Doc: 9 Filed: 10/28/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 16-6561 Doc: 9 Filed: 10/28/2016 Pg: 3 of 3