Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Clarence JOHNSON, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-06-01
Citations: 183 F. App'x 376
Docket Number: No. 06-6655
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Clarence JOHNSON, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 183
Pages: 376–376

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Clarence JOHNSON, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-6655.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 18, 2006.
Decided: June 1, 2006.
John Clarence Johnson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Jean Howard, Office of the United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
John Clarence Johnson, Jr., a federal prisoner, seeks a certificate of appealability to appeal the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. 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 the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are likewise debatable or wrong. See 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.