The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
14-6381•United States of America v. James Orlando Johnson, a/k/a James Armand Johnson, a/k/a James Johnson, a/k/a James…
14-6381Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitJun 30, 2014
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6381
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMES ORLANDO JOHNSON, a/k/a James Armand Johnson, a/k/a
James Johnson, a/k/a James A. Johnson, a/k/a James Omar
Johnson, a/k/a James Armond Johnson,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Chief District
Judge. (8:09-cr-00085-DKC-1)
Submitted: June 26, 2014 Decided: June 30, 2014
Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Orlando Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. David Ira Salem,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
James Orlando Johnson seeks to appeal the portion of
the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a
circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of
appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)
(2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a
prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that
reasonable jurists would find that the district 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).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Johnson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly,
we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.