United States v. Johnny Felder ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •                                      UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 19-6727
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    JOHNNY LEE FELDER, a/k/a Cool Daddy,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.
    Terry L. Wooten, Senior District Judge. (4:03-cr-00283-TLW-1; 4:16-cv-01307-TLW)
    Submitted: September 11, 2019                                  Decided: December 9, 2019
    Before KING and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Johnny Lee Felder, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Johnny Lee Felder seeks to appeal the district court’s order 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 Felder 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 contentions are
    adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the
    decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 19-6727

Filed Date: 12/9/2019

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/9/2019