Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 40 views

    United States v. Antwane Johnson, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case. The court dismissed Antwane Johnson's appeal of the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and Rule 59(e) motion. The court affirmed the denial of Johnson's 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction. The court concluded that Johnson did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong. The court also denied Johnson's motion for appointment of counsel.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Antwane Johnson, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    40 views3 pages
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case. The court dismissed Antwane Johnson's appeal of the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and Rule 59(e) motion. The court affirmed the denial of Johnson's 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction. The court concluded that Johnson did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong. The court also denied Johnson's motion for appointment of counsel.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2015-04-20 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 14-6362

    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 United States Court of Appeals case. The court dismissed Antwane Johnson's appeal of the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and Rule 59(e) motion. The court affirmed the denial of Johnson's 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction. The court concluded that Johnson did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong. The court also denied Johnson's motion for appointment of counsel.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Antwane Johnson, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case. The court dismissed Antwane Johnson's appeal of the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and Rule 59(e) motion. The court affirmed the denial of Johnson's 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction. The court concluded that Johnson did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong. The court also denied Johnson's motion for appointment of counsel.

    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. 14-6362

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    ANTWANE JAMALE JOHNSON,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Dever, III,
    Chief District Judge. (7:07-cr-00043-D-1; 7:12-cv-00001-D)

    Submitted:

    April 16, 2015

    Decided:

    April 20, 2015

    Before AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam


    opinion.

    Antwane Jamale Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Aubrey West,


    Assistant United States Attorney, Shailika S. Kotiya, Timothy
    Severo, Augustus D. Willis, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
    ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Antwane Jamale Johnson seeks to appeal the district courts
    orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. 2255 (2012) and 18
    U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) (2012) motions and denying his motion under
    Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).
    appealable

    unless

    The orders addressing 2255 are not


    circuit

    certificate of appealability.
    A

    certificate

    of

    justice

    or

    judge

    issues

    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).

    appealability

    will

    not

    issue

    absent

    substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.


    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2) (2012).
    relief

    on

    the

    demonstrating
    district

    merits,
    that

    courts

    debatable

    or

    When the district court denies

    prisoner

    reasonable

    assessment

    wrong.

    Slack

    satisfies

    jurists

    this

    would

    of

    the

    v.

    McDaniel,

    standard

    find

    constitutional
    529

    U.S.

    by

    that

    the

    claims

    is

    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

    claim of the denial of a constitutional right.

    debatable

    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 Johnsons motion for a certificate of appealability and

    dismiss the appeal as to the 2255 motion and denial of the


    Rule 59(e) motion.
    As to the 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence
    reduction, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible
    error.

    Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

    district court.

    United States v. Johnson, Nos. 7:07-cr-00043-D-

    1; 7:12-cv-00001-D (E.D.N.C. Aug. 14, 2013; Jan. 16, 2014)


    We deny Johnsons motion for appointment of counsel.
    dispense

    with

    contentions

    are

    oral

    argument

    adequately

    because

    presented

    in

    the
    the

    facts

    We

    and

    legal

    materials

    before

    this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

    DISMISSED IN PART;
    AFFIRMED IN PART

    You might also like