US v. Antwane Johnson, No. 14-6362 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6362 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ANTWANE JAMALE JOHNSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Dever, III, Chief District Judge. (7:07-cr-00043-D-1; 7:12-cv-00001-D) Submitted: April 16, 2015 Decided: April 20, 2015 Before AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Antwane Jamale Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Aubrey West, Assistant United States Attorney, Shailika S. Kotiya, Timothy Severo, Augustus D. Willis, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Antwane Jamale Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) and 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motions and denying his motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). appealable unless a The orders addressing § 2255 are not circuit certificate of appealability. A certificate of justice or judge issues a 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). 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 Johnson’s motion for a certificate of appealability and 2 dismiss the appeal as to the § 2255 motion and denial of the Rule 59(e) motion. As to the 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Johnson, Nos. 7:07-cr-00043-D- 1; 7:12-cv-00001-D (E.D.N.C. Aug. 14, 2013; Jan. 16, 2014) We deny Johnson’s motion for appointment of counsel. dispense with contentions are oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts We and legal materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART 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.
