Court Opinion

ID: 4157472
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-04-03 19:02:14.230309+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:39:10.521462
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 16-6469

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                      Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

CLEVE ALEXANDER JOHNSON, a/k/a Cuz,

                      Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:08-cr-00233-TDS-1; 1:12-cv-00571-TDS-JLW)

Submitted:   March 30, 2017                   Decided:   April 3, 2017

Before TRAXLER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Harvey Alexander Carpenter, IV, LAW OFFICES OF H.A. CARPENTER
IV, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Joan Brodish
Childs, Sandra Jane Hairston, Robert Michael Hamilton, Angela
Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys, Randall
Stuart Galyon, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Cleve     Alexander      Johnson      seeks      to    appeal       the      district

court’s    order      accepting    the      recommendation         of    the     magistrate

judge and 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