UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-6215
COREY E. JOHNSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
LORETTA K. KELLY, Warden, Sussex I State Prison,
Respondent - Appellee,
and
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District Judge. (3:07-cv-00731-JRS)
Submitted: May 25, 2017 Decided: May 31, 2017
Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Corey E. Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Leah A. Darron, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Corey E. Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. R.
Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on his
28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or
judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012); Reid v.
Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). 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 petition 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 a certificate of appealability, deny
leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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
3