United States v. Mark Jones, Sr. , 678 F. App'x 133 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 16-7477
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    MARK J. JONES, SR., a/k/a Mark Jacob Jones, Sr.,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk.     Robert G. Doumar, Senior
    District Judge. (2:14-cr-00132-LRL-2; 2:16-cv-00106-RGD-LRL)
    Submitted:   February 23, 2017            Decided:   February 28, 2017
    Before SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
    Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Mark J. Jones, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.     Kevin Patrick Hudson,
    Alan Mark Salsbury, Assistant United States Attorneys, Joseph
    Kosky, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia,
    for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Mark J. Jones, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order denying relief on 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 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
    2
    before   this   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional
    process.
    DISMISSED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 16-7477

Citation Numbers: 678 F. App'x 133

Judges: Davis, Diaz, Per Curiam, Shedd

Filed Date: 2/28/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024