US v. Neil Johnson, No. 14-6398 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6398 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. NEIL CALVIN JOHNSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:07-cr-00900-RBH-1; 4:10-cv-70246-RBH) Submitted: September 23, 2014 Decided: September 25, 2014 Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Neil Calvin Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. William Norman Nettles, United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Neil Calvin Johnson seeks to appeal the district court s order denying, as successive, his motion to amend his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. a circuit justice or The order is not appealable unless judge issues a certificate appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). of A certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. (2012). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this jurists would reasonable standard find by that demonstrating the district that court s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). denies relief demonstrate both on procedural that the When the district court grounds, dispositive the prisoner procedural ruling must is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Johnson has not made the requisite showing. The district court lacked jurisdiction to consider Johnson s motion to amend his § 2255 motion because it was a successive and unauthorized 2 § 2255 motion. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny as moot Johnson s motion to expedite, and dismiss the appeal. facts and materials legal before We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately this and argument court presented would not in the aid the decisional process. DISMISSED In the absence of pre-filing authorization from this court, the district court lacks jurisdiction to hear a successive § 2255 motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) (2012). 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.
