Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07743/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07743-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7743

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MICHAEL ANTHONY JONES, a/k/a Spunk,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, 

District Judge. (5:11-cr-00099-FL-1; 5:13-cv-00781-FL)

Submitted: April 29, 2016 Decided: June 10, 2016

Before KING, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Anthony Jones, Appellant Pro Se. James Bradsher, OFFICE 

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7743 Doc: 13 Filed: 06/10/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael Anthony Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

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, although 

we grant Jones’ motion to adopt and incorporate the district 

court records and his motion to amend his application for a 

Appeal: 15-7743 Doc: 13 Filed: 06/10/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

certificate of appealability, we deny his motion for a 

certificate of appealability, amended motion for a certificate 

of appealability, and motion to expand the certificate of 

appealability, and we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-7743 Doc: 13 Filed: 06/10/2016 Pg: 3 of 3