United States v. James Albert Jones , 548 F. App'x 95 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 13-6955
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    JAMES ALBERT JONES,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Anderson.     Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
    District Judge. (8:06-cr-01264-HMH-1; 8:08-cv-70070-HMH)
    Submitted:   December 17, 2013            Decided: December 19, 2013
    Before KING, GREGORY, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    James Albert Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Maxwell B. Cauthen, III,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina,
    for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    James     Albert   Jones    seeks     to      appeal     the     district
    court’s order construing his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as a
    28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2013) motion, and dismissing the
    motion as untimely filed.          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: 18-7

Citation Numbers: 548 F. App'x 95

Filed Date: 12/19/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014