Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-19-07153/USCOURTS-ca4-19-07153-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Andrew Timothy Jones
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7153

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ANDREW TIMOTHY JONES,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at 

Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, Chief District Judge. (3:03-cr-00055-FDW-DCK-1; 

3:19-cv-00239-FDW)

Submitted: December 19, 2019 Decided: January 7, 2020

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Andrew Timothy Jones, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7153 Doc: 9 Filed: 01/07/2020 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Andrew Timothy Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion 

to reopen the district court’s order 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, 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 before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7153 Doc: 9 Filed: 01/07/2020 Pg: 2 of 2