United States v. Antonio Jones , 687 F. App'x 255 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-7509
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANTONIO SHERROD JONES, a/k/a Birdie,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (2:03-cr-00172-AWA-FBS-1; 2:15-cv-
00359-AWA)
Submitted: April 25, 2017 Decided: April 27, 2017
Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Antonio Sherrod Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Curtis Bosse, Assistant United States
Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Antonio Sherrod Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as
untimely 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 Jones has not made
the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Jones’ motion and supplemental motion for
a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Jones’ motion for
appointment of counsel. We grant Jones’ motion to exceed the page length limitations on
his motion for a certificate of appealability. 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
2