United States v. Felder , 382 F. App'x 278 ( 2010 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6356
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, District Judge.
(4:03-cr-00283-TLW-1; 4:07-cv-70067-TLW)
Submitted: June 1, 2010 Decided: June 9, 2010
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Johnny Lee Felder, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker
Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Johnny Lee Felder, a federal prisoner, appeals the
district court’s order denying relief on his petition for writ
of coram nobis or audita querela brought under 28 U.S.C. § 1651
(2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of a petition for
coram nobis or audita querela for the reasons stated by the
district court. See United States v. Felder, No. 4:03-cr-00283-
TLW-1 (S.D.C. Jan. 28, 2010).
The district court also considered Felder’s motion as
a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion challenging the prior denial of
his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009), and
denied relief. That portion of the order is not appealable
unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of
appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (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
2
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
dismiss the portion of the appeal construing Felder’s claims as
a Rule 60(b) motion relating to the prior denial of his 28
U.S.C.A. § 2255 motion.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART
3