United States v. Rodney Jones , 548 F. App'x 897 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 13-7184
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff – Appellee,
    v.
    RODNEY EDWARD JONES,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Newport News. Arenda L. Wright Allen,
    District Judge.     (4:07-cr-00110-AWA-JEB-1; 4:09-cv-00076-JBF-
    DEM)
    Submitted:   December 16, 2013             Decided:   December 20, 2013
    Before KEENAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Rodney Edward Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward Bradenham,
    II, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia,
    for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Rodney       Edward    Jones         seeks   to     appeal       the   district
    court’s order denying relief on his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     (West Supp.
    2013) 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) (2006).                   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) (2006).                   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 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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 19-2076

Citation Numbers: 548 F. App'x 897

Filed Date: 12/20/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021