Case ID: f-appx_66/html/0513-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Fred McKinley JONES, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 02-7932.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted April 28, 2003.
    Decided June 18, 2003.
    Fred McKinley Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Wiley Miller, Office of the United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

Fred McKinley Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken to this court from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding 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 for claims addressed by a district court on the merits absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). As to claims dismissed by a district court solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the petitioner can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’ ” Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000)), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941, 122 S.Ct. 318, 151 L.Ed.2d 237 (2001).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Jones has not satisfied either standard. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We deny Jones’s motions for appointment of counsel, for expansion of the record, for judicial notice, and for an evidentiary hearing. Finally, 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. 
      
       Jones attempts to raise an issue in his informal brief that was not before the district court and that we decline to address. See Muth v. United. States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir.1993) (noting that issues raised for the first time on appeal generally will not be considered).