US v. Johnny Gore, No. 12-7542 (4th Cir. 2013)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7542 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JOHNNY LEE GORE, a/k/a Manager, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, Senior District Judge. (4:01-cr-00627-CWH-9) Submitted: December 6, 2012 Before MOTZ and Circuit Judge. DAVIS, Circuit Decided: Judges, and January 2, 2013 HAMILTON, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Johnny Lee Gore, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Johnny Lee Gore seeks to appeal the district court s order denying his motion for bail pending a final disposition on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion. not appealable unless a circuit certificate of appealability. A certificate of justice or The order is judge issues a 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). relief on the demonstrating district debatable merits, that court s or a When the district court denies prisoner reasonable assessment wrong. satisfies jurists would of the v. McDaniel, Slack this standard find that U.S. the claims constitutional 529 by is 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Gore has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny We Gore s dispense motion with contentions are oral to expedite argument adequately the decision because presented in the the as facts moot. and legal materials before this 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.