United States v. Johnny Cooper, Jr. ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-8026
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOHNNY WILLIAM COOPER, JR., a/k/a Buck,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (3:02-cr-00548-CMC-37)
Submitted: February 26, 2013 Decided: March 1, 2013
Before MOTZ, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Johnny William Cooper, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Beth Drake, Mark
C. Moore, Jane Barrett Taylor, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Johnny William Cooper, Jr., seeks to appeal the
district court’s order construing his motion to amend his
previously filed 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion as
a successive and unauthorized § 2255 motion, and dismissing it
on that basis. The order is not appealable unless a circuit
justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). 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) (2006). 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 Cooper 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
2
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
3