Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07351/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07351-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Cassius R. Jones
Appellant
Drew Stanley
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7351

CASSIUS R. JONES,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

DREW STANLEY,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III,

Chief District Judge. (5:15-hc-02048-D)

Submitted: January 15, 2016 Decided: January 27, 2016

Before NIEMEYER and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cassius R. Jones, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7351 Doc: 12 Filed: 01/27/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Cassius R. Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition as successive. 

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (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 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, deny leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

Appeal: 15-7351 Doc: 12 Filed: 01/27/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-7351 Doc: 12 Filed: 01/27/2016 Pg: 3 of 3