Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 16 views

    United States v. Johnso, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case in which Verron MacArthur Johnson sought to appeal a district court order treating his motion under Rule 60 as a successive 28 U.S.C. §2255 motion and dismissing it. The circuit court denied Johnson a certificate of appealability, finding he did not make a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right. The court also denied authorization for Johnson to file a second or successive §2255 motion, as his claims did not meet the statutory criteria for authorization.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Johnso, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    16 views3 pages
    This document summarizes a court case in which Verron MacArthur Johnson sought to appeal a district court order treating his motion under Rule 60 as a successive 28 U.S.C. §2255 motion and dismissing it. The circuit court denied Johnson a certificate of appealability, finding he did not make a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right. The court also denied authorization for Johnson to file a second or successive §2255 motion, as his claims did not meet the statutory criteria for authorization.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2010-03-24 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 106015

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a court case in which Verron MacArthur Johnson sought to appeal a district court order treating his motion under Rule 60 as a successive 28 U.S.C. §2255 motion and dismissing it. The circuit court denied Johnson a certificate of appealability, finding he did not make a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right. The court also denied authorization for Johnson to file a second or successive §2255 motion, as his claims did not meet the statutory criteria for authorization.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    16 views3 pages

    United States v. Johnso, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case in which Verron MacArthur Johnson sought to appeal a district court order treating his motion under Rule 60 as a successive 28 U.S.C. §2255 motion and dismissing it. The circuit court denied Johnson a certificate of appealability, finding he did not make a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right. The court also denied authorization for Johnson to file a second or successive §2255 motion, as his claims did not meet the statutory criteria for authorization.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 10-6015

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    VERRON MACARTHUR JOHNSON,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond.
    Henry E. Hudson, District
    Judge. (3:03-cr-00318-HEH-1)(3:09-cr-00318-HEH-1)

    Submitted:

    March 16, 2010

    Decided:

    March 24, 2010

    Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Verron MacArthur Johnson, Appellant Pro Se.


    Peter Sinclair
    Duffey, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia,
    for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Verron MacArthur Johnson seeks to appeal the district
    courts order treating his motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 (a),
    (b) as a successive 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 (West Supp. 2009) motion,
    and dismissing it on that basis.
    unless

    circuit

    appealability.
    369

    F.3d

    justice

    or

    The order is not appealable

    judge

    issues

    certificate

    of

    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1) (2006); Reid v. Angelone,

    363,

    369

    (4th

    Cir.

    2004).

    certificate

    of

    appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of


    the denial of a constitutional right.
    (2006).

    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2)

    A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating

    that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the


    constitutional

    claims

    by

    the

    district

    court

    is

    debatable

    or

    wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district


    court is likewise debatable.

    Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S.

    322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);
    Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).

    We have

    independently reviewed the record and conclude that Johnson has


    not

    made

    the

    requisite

    showing.

    Accordingly,

    we

    deny

    certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.


    Additionally, we construe Johnsons notice of appeal
    and

    informal

    brief

    as

    an

    application

    to

    successive motion under 28 U.S.C.A. 2255.

    file

    second

    or

    United States v.

    Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003).


    2

    In order to

    obtain

    authorization

    prisoner

    must

    discovered

    to

    assert

    evidence,

    file

    claims
    not

    successive

    based

    on

    previously

    2255

    either:
    discoverable

    motion,

    (1) newly
    by

    due

    diligence, that would be sufficient to establish by clear and


    convincing

    evidence

    that,

    but

    for

    constitutional

    error,

    no

    reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the


    offense; or (2) a new rule of constitutional law, previously
    unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on
    collateral review.
    Johnsons

    claims

    28 U.S.C.A. 2255(h) (West Supp. 2009).


    do

    not

    satisfy

    either

    of

    these

    criteria.

    Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive 2255


    motion.
    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
    legal
    before

    contentions
    the

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in

    aid

    the
    the

    materials
    decisional

    process.
    DISMISSED

    You might also like