United States v. Jones , 406 F. App'x 714 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 10-7406
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    KENNETH N. JONES, JR.,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke.       James C. Turk, Senior
    District Judge. (7:09-cr-00027-jct-2; 7:10-cv-80250-jct-mfu)
    Submitted:   December 16, 2010            Decided:   December 29, 2010
    Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Kenneth N. Jones, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Andrew Bassford,
    Assistant  United   States  Attorney,  Roanoke,   Virginia,  for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Kenneth       Jones,   Jr.,       seeks    to   appeal        the   district
    court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West
    Supp.    2010)    motion.      The   order      is    not    appealable         unless   a
    circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
    28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (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 contentions are adequately presented in the materials
    2
    before   the   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional
    process.
    DISMISSED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-7406

Citation Numbers: 406 F. App'x 714

Judges: Gregory, Duncan, Davis

Filed Date: 12/29/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024