United States v. Jones , 285 F. App'x 64 ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 08-6279
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    REGINALD CORNELL JONES,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond.     James R. Spencer, Chief
    District Judge. (3:05-cr-00466-JRS-1; 3:07-cv-00364-JRS)
    Submitted:   July 22, 2008                  Decided:   July 25, 2008
    Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Reginald Cornell Jones, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Reginald Cornell Jones seeks to appeal the district
    court’s order denying relief on his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     (2000) motion.
    The order is not appealable 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   any
    assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is
    debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by
    the district court is likewise debatable.     Miller-El v. Cockrell,
    
    537 U.S. 322
    , 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 
    529 U.S. 473
    , 484
    (2000); Rose v. Lee, 
    252 F.3d 676
    , 683-84 (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: 08-6279

Citation Numbers: 285 F. App'x 64

Judges: Wilkinson, Motz, Shedd

Filed Date: 7/25/2008

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024