United States v. Johnson

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6306
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MARY KATHERINE JOHNSON, a/k/a Paula C.
Winland, a/k/a Mary Katherine Simmons, a/k/a
Paula C. Petty, a/k/a Mary Katherine Parker,
a/k/a Daneale Louise Pulliam, a/k/a Danielle
Novak, a/k/a Elaine Moench, a/k/a Grace E.
Moench, a/k/a Mary Katherine Jackson, a/k/a
Daneale Louise Johnson, a/k/a Paula C.
Hargrove, a/k/a Judith Pamela Hargrove, a/k/a
Kathy Anne Galliger, a/k/a Kathy Gallegos,
a/k/a Mary Katherine Giles, a/k/a Deanna G.
Chase, a/k/a Deanne Claire, a/k/a Jackie C.
Chambers, a/k/a Grace E. Bryan, a/k/a Mary
Katherine Boyde, a/k/a Martin Elliott Bates,
a/k/a Deanna Gail Bates, a/k/a Danielle
Ainsworth, a/k/a Mary Katherine Johnson Giles
Holder,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (CR-98-26; CA-03-188-7-F)
Submitted: April 15, 2004 Decided: April 23, 2004
Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mary Katherine Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Scott L. Wilkinson,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Mary Katherine Johnson, a federal prisoner, seeks to
appeal the district court’s order denying relief on her motion
filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken
from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit
justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue
for claims addressed by a district court absent “a substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by
demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find both that her
constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive
procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or
wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003);
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d
676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the
record and conclude that Johnson 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 the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 3 -