Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-08-06271/USCOURTS-ca4-08-06271-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 08-6271

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,

District Judge. (3:03-cr-00055-FDW-DCK-1; 3:07-cv-00373-FDW)

Submitted: June 12, 2008 Decided: June 26, 2008

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

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Andrew Timothy Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Keith Michael Cave, Adam

Christopher Morris, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,

Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 08-6271 Doc: 8 Filed: 06/26/2008 Pg: 1 of 2
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Andrew Timothy Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s

orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and his

motion for reconsideration. The orders are 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: 08-6271 Doc: 8 Filed: 06/26/2008 Pg: 2 of 2