Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06499/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06499-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kevin Jermaine Johnson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6499

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

KEVIN JERMAINE JOHNSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. 

(1:10-cr-00703-RDB-1; 1:13-cv-02882-RDB)

Submitted: June 23, 2016 Decided: June 29, 2016

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kevin Jermaine Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Brooke Elizabeth Carey, 

Christine Marie Celeste, Christopher Lee Andrew Flagg, OFFICE OF 

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6499 Doc: 8 Filed: 06/29/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Kevin Jermaine Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s 

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

returning his post-judgment motion to amend. 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

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 

Appeal: 16-6499 Doc: 8 Filed: 06/29/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 16-6499 Doc: 8 Filed: 06/29/2016 Pg: 3 of 3