UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6561
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JOHNNIE BUTLER, a/k/a JR,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. David A. Faber, Senior District Judge.
(1:08-cr-00381-DAF-1; 1:12-cv-03468-DAF)
Submitted: October 17, 2016 Decided: October 28, 2016
Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Johnnie Butler, Appellant Pro Se. Christine Marie Celeste,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Joshua Thomas Ferrentino,
Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Johnnie Butler seeks to appeal the district court’s orders
denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The
orders 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
Butler 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
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3