Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-08-07839/USCOURTS-ca4-08-07839-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 08-7839

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

BLAIR R. JONES, JR., 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, 

District Judge. (1:07-cv-00115-IMK-JSK; 1:05-cr-00095-IMK-1) 

Submitted: January 21, 2010 Decided: February 16, 2010 

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Blair R. Jones, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. John Castle Parr, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

Appeal: 08-7839 Doc: 36 Filed: 02/16/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
PER CURIAM: 

Blair R. Jones, Jr., seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate 

judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 

2009) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit 

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). 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). 

The district court concluded that Jones’ claims 

challenging the validity of his conviction were barred by the 

appellate waiver provision in his plea agreement. However, the 

waiver applies only to claims challenging Jones’ sentence. 

Nevertheless, although the district court committed a procedural 

error by relying on the waiver provision to dismiss Jones’ 

§ 2255 motion, our independent review of the record confirms 

that, on their merits, the claims Jones raised in his motion do 

2 

Appeal: 08-7839 Doc: 36 Filed: 02/16/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3 

not substantially show that his constitutional rights were 

infringed. Accordingly, we deny Jones’ motion for a certificate 

of appealability and all pending motions 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: 08-7839 Doc: 36 Filed: 02/16/2010 Pg: 3 of 3