UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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). The orders addressing § 2255 are 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. 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. 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 PART;
AFFIRMED IN PART
3