US v. Johnnie Reed, No. 09-7710 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7710 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JOHNNIE L. REED, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (2:08-cr-00023-RGD-FBS-1; 2:09-cv-00059-RGD) Submitted: December 15, 2009 Decided: December 21, 2009 Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Johnnie L. Reed, Appellant Pro Se. D. Monique Broadnax, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Johnnie L. Reed seeks to appeal the district court s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009) motion. judge The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or issues a certificate § 2253(c)(1) (2006). issue absent constitutional prisoner a substantial right. jurists constitutional appealability. See 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not satisfies reasonable of 28 this would claims by showing U.S.C. the the denial § 2253(c)(2) standard find of that district by of (2006). demonstrating any assessment court is a A that of the debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. See 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 Reed has not made the requisite showing. certificate dispense of with appealability oral argument and dismiss because * Accordingly, we deny a the the appeal. * facts and We legal To the extent Reed seeks to raise issues for the first time on appeal, we decline to consider such claims. See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993). 2 contentions are adequately presented 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.
