Court Opinion

ID: 4177143
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-06-13 19:04:57.416117+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:47:13.225967
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 16-7542

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

JOHNNY WILLIAM COOPER, JR., a/k/a Buck,

                    Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (3:02-cr-00548-CMC-37;
3:14-cv-02200-CMC)

Submitted: March 22, 2017                                         Decided: June 13, 2017

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Johnny William Cooper, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Beth Drake, Acting United States Attorney,
Jane Barrett Taylor, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

       Johnny William Cooper, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(d)(3) motion seeking relief from the district court’s order denying

Cooper’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is 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 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 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S.
322, 336-38 (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.

       We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Cooper 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

                                             2