Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Stacy Tremaine JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-04-28
Citations: 324 F. App'x 235
Docket Number: No. 08-7998
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Stacy Tremaine JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before MICHAEL, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 324
Pages: 235–236

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Stacy Tremaine JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-7998.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 31, 2009.
Decided: April 28, 2009.
Stacy Tremaine Johnson, Appellant Pro se. Michael Gordon James, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Stacy Tremaine Johnson seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2008) motion and denying his motions for reconsideration and for a certificate of appeala-bility. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of ap-pealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). 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 be fore the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.