Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Joe JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-03-20
Citations: 598 F. App'x 206
Docket Number: No. 14-7673
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Joe JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 598
Pages: 206–206

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Joe JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-7673.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 17, 2015.
Decided: March 20, 2015.
William Joe Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
William Joe Johnson seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration. The orders are not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) (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.