US v. Hank Johnson, No. 13-7008 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7008 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. HANK AARON JOHNSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:06-cr-00185-RJC-1; 3:09-cv-00477RJC) Submitted: October 31, 2013 Decided: November 20, 2013 Before WILKINSON, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Hank Aaron Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina; Dana Owen Washington, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Hank Aaron Johnson seeks to appeal the district court s order dismissing as successive his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the denial of relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2013) motion. appealable unless a circuit certificate of appealability. A certificate of justice The order is not or 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 merits, that court s debatable or a When the district court denies prisoner reasonable assessment wrong. Slack satisfies 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, deny Johnson s motion to supplement the record, and dismiss the appeal. 2 We dispense with oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts and materials legal contentions are before this and court argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3