Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06087/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06087-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6087

WILLIAM T. JONES, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

R.C. MATHENA, Mr., Warden, Keen Mountain Corr. Ctr.,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District 

Judge. (7:09-cv-00056-gec-mfu)

Submitted: June 29, 2010 Decided: July 19, 2010

Before SHEDD and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William T. Jones, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Joshua Mikell Didlake, 

Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-6087 Doc: 9 Filed: 07/19/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

William T. Jones, Jr., seeks to appeal the district 

court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)

petition and denying reconsideration. The orders are not 

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. See 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). 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 petition 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 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 

Appeal: 10-6087 Doc: 9 Filed: 07/19/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

DISMISSED

Appeal: 10-6087 Doc: 9 Filed: 07/19/2010 Pg: 3 of 3