Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kevin Jermaine JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-06-29
Citations: 653 F. App'x 229
Docket Number: No. 16-6499
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kevin Jermaine JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 653
Pages: 229–229

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kevin Jermaine JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-6499
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 23, 2016
Decided: June 29, 2016
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.
Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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 ap-pealability 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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, 120 S.Ct. 1595.
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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED