US v. Wayne Johnson, No. 09-7314 (4th Cir. 2009)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7314 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WAYNE C. JOHNSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (3:09-cv-00421-RLW; 3:99-cr-00119-RLW-1) Submitted: November 17, 2009 Decided: November 24, 2009 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wayne C. Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen David Schiller, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Wayne C. Johnson seeks to appeal the district court s order construing his petition for a writ of audita querela as a successive 28 U.S.C.A. dismissing it for appealable unless lack a § 2255 of of Supp. jurisdiction. circuit justice 2009) The order is not a A will not judge and issues appealability or motion, 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). certificate of appealability. certificate (West issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. standard § 2253(c)(2) by (2006). demonstrating that A prisoner reasonable satisfies jurists would this find that 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). conclude We that have Johnson independently has not made reviewed the the record requisite and showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Johnson s motion to compel disclosure from all parties of interest. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 2 in the materials before the 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.