United States v. Jones ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 05-6804
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    KEVIN EUGENE JONES,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
    District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
    District Judge. (CR-94-300; CA-04-1114)
    Submitted: September 29, 2005             Decided:   October 11, 2005
    Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Kevin Eugene Jones, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Kevin Eugene Jones seeks to appeal the district court's
    order accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss
    his successive motion pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     (2000) for lack
    of jurisdiction.       An appeal may not be taken from the final order
    in a post-conviction proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge
    issues a certificate of appealability.                   
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(1)
    (2000).    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) (2000).          A prisoner satisfies this standard by
    demonstrating      that   reasonable       jurists       would    find    that   his
    constitutional     claims      are   debatable     and     that   any    dispositive
    procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or
    wrong.    See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 
    537 U.S. 322
    , 336 (2003); Slack
    v. McDaniel, 
    529 U.S. 473
    , 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 
    252 F.3d 676
    ,
    683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and
    conclude    that      Jones    has   not    made     the     requisite     showing.
    Accordingly,     we     deny    Jones’     motion    for     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 the court and argument would not
    aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    - 2 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-6804

Judges: Wilkinson, King, Gregory

Filed Date: 10/11/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024