United States v. Johnny Wesley , 598 F. App'x 193 ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7890
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOHNNY LEE WESLEY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (1:97-cr-00382-HCM-2)
Submitted: March 17, 2015 Decided: March 20, 2015
Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed in part, dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Johnny Lee Wesley, Appellant Pro Se. James L. Trump, Assistant
United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Johnny Lee Wesley seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his petition for writ of error coram
nobis and denying as successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012)
motion. Regarding Wesley’s petition for writ of error coram
nobis, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. United States v. Wesley, No. 1:97-cr-00382-HCM-2 (E.D.
Va. Oct. 29, 2014).
Regarding Wesley’s appeal of the § 2255 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
2
claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S.
at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Wesley has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny
a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal of the
§ 2255 motion. We dispense with oral argument because the facts
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART
3