UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. 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). 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 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. 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
∗
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