Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Terry Kermit JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-12-18
Citations: 303 F. App'x 162
Docket Number: No. 08-7568
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Terry Kermit JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 303
Pages: 162–162

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Terry Kermit JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-7568.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 11, 2008.
Decided: Dec. 18, 2008.
Terry Kermit Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, NC, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Terry Kermit Johnson seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion to reopen under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(4). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir.2004). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). 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 before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.
The underlying Rule 60(b) motion is Johnson's sixth post-judgment motion seeking reconsideration of the district court's July 2006 order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion.