Court Opinion

ID: 3186611
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-03-17 19:02:55.17206+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:05:45.922975
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 15-7460

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

MARC ERIC JOHNSON,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.     Liam O’Grady, District
Judge. (1:10-cr-00446-LO-4; 1:14-cv-00431-LO)

Submitted:   February 25, 2016            Decided:   March 17, 2016

Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marc Eric Johnson, Appellant Pro Se.       Marc Birnbaum, Scott
Andrew Claffee, Special Assistant United States Attorneys, Bryan
Michael Byrd, Kellen Sean Dwyer, Jason David Jones, Adam
Ptashkin, Michael R. Tregle, Anna A. Vlasova, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Mary Katherine Barr Daly, Assistant
United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

      Marc     Eric    Johnson    seeks      to    appeal     the     district        court’s

order denying relief on his 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

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

                                             2
contentions   are   adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                               DISMISSED

                                   3