Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-06963/USCOURTS-ca4-07-06963-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jeffrey Dwayne Jones
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6963

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JEFFREY DWAYNE JONES,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen M. Williams, Senior

District Judge. (1:03-cr-00123; 7:05-cv-00299)

Submitted: May 30, 2008 Decided: June 11, 2008

Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeffrey Dwayne Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Jean Barrett Hudson,

Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-6963 Doc: 29 Filed: 06/11/2008 Pg: 1 of 2
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Jeffrey Dwayne 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 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: 07-6963 Doc: 29 Filed: 06/11/2008 Pg: 2 of 2