Court Opinion

ID: 858855
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-04-23 19:20:50.71267+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:34:13.691114
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 13-6287

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                      Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

MARIO LAMONT JOHNSON,

                      Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.      Malcolm J. Howard,
Senior District Judge. (5:04-cr-00270-H-1; 5:12-cv-00441-H)

Submitted:   April 18, 2013                 Decided:   April 23, 2013

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mario Lamont Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker,
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Mario    Lamont   Johnson       seeks   to    appeal         the    district

court’s    order      dismissing   as   untimely      his       28       U.S.C.A.      § 2255

(West Supp. 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)         (2006).          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).

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