Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-06883/USCOURTS-ca4-07-06883-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James Sylvester Jones
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6883

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JAMES SYLVESTER JONES, a/k/a Big Jimmy,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, Chief District Judge.

(1:97-cr-00248-BEL-1; 1:03-cv-02985-BEL)

Submitted: November 15, 2007 Decided: November 21, 2007 

Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Sylvester Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Christine Manuelian, Lynne

Ann Battaglia, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore,

Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-6883 Doc: 17 Filed: 11/21/2007 Pg: 1 of 2
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

James Sylvester 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 we 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: 07-6883 Doc: 17 Filed: 11/21/2007 Pg: 2 of 2