US v. Charlotte Johnson, No. 13-7926 (4th Cir. 2014)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7926 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. CHARLOTTE JOHNSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief District Judge. (4:11-cr-00109-RBS-FBS-1; 4:13-cv-00111RBS) Submitted: April 17, 2014 Decided: April 29, 2014 Before KEENAN, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charlotte Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Eric Matthew Hurt, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Charlotte Johnson seeks to appeal the district court s order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. certificate of 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). appealability will not issue absent A a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). on the merits, demonstrating district that court s debatable or a When the district court denies relief prisoner satisfies reasonable assessment wrong. Slack jurists this would of the v. McDaniel, standard find U.S. that the claims constitutional 529 by is 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 claim of the denial of a constitutional right. a debatable Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 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 2 because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this Court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.