Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-12-07542/USCOURTS-ca4-12-07542-0/pdf.json

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

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7542

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JOHNNY LEE GORE, a/k/a Manager,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, Senior District 

Judge. (4:01-cr-00627-CWH-9)

Submitted: December 6, 2012 Decided: January 2, 2013

Before MOTZ and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Johnny Lee Gore, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 12-7542 Doc: 8 Filed: 01/02/2013 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Johnny Lee Gore seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying his motion for bail pending a final disposition on 

his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) 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) (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). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Gore has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

deny Gore’s motion to expedite the decision as moot. 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: 12-7542 Doc: 8 Filed: 01/02/2013 Pg: 2 of 2