Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-08-06279/USCOURTS-ca4-08-06279-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 08-6279 Doc: 10 Filed: 07/25/2008 Pg: 1 of 2
- 2 -

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

Appeal: 08-6279 Doc: 10 Filed: 07/25/2008 Pg: 2 of 2