Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Clarence JOHNSON, Jr., a/k/a JJ, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Clarence Johnson, Jr., a/k/a JJ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-12-28
Citations: 22 F. App'x 321
Docket Number: Nos. 01-7138, 01-7339
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Clarence JOHNSON, Jr., a/k/a JJ, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Clarence Johnson, Jr., a/k/a JJ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 22
Pages: 321–322

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Clarence JOHNSON, Jr., a/k/a JJ, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Clarence Johnson, Jr., a/k/a JJ, Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 01-7138, 01-7339.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 20, 2001.
Decided Dec. 28, 2001.
John Clarence Johnson, Jr., Pro Se. Elizabeth Jean Howard, Office of The United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
John Clarence Johnson, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2001), construing his post-judgment motion for relief, and dismissing his motion to reconsider (Appeal No. 01-7138). He also appeals the district court's denial of his motion for a transcript (Appeal No. 01-7339). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Johnson's pending motions for transcript, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeals on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Johnson, Nos. CR-98-922; CA-01-2114-6-20 (D.S.C. May 10, June 7, June 21, and Aug. 7, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.
Upon demonstration by Appellant of proof of timely mailing of his motion for reconsideration such that it properly was subject to consideration pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e), the district court reconsidered the motion on the merits under Rule 59(e), thereby rendering harmless its prior construction of the motion pursuant to Rule 60(b).