US v. Johnson, No. 06-7504 (4th Cir. 2006)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7504 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TERRY KERMIT JOHNSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (5:98-cr-00289-6; 5:03-cv-00049) Submitted: November 17, 2006 Decided: December 19, 2006 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Terry Kermit Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Gretchen C. F. Shappert, United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Terry Kermit Johnson seeks to appeal the district court s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable 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 absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. § 2253(c)(2) demonstrating (2000). that A prisoner reasonable satisfies jurists would this 28 U.S.C. standard find that by any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (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, dismiss the appeal, and deny Johnson s motion for the appointment of counsel. 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 - 2 -

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.