Case Name: Michael Contrez JONES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Frank L. PERRY, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-05-24
Citations: 689 F. App'x 741
Docket Number: No. 16-7189
Parties: Michael Contrez JONES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Frank L. PERRY, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 689
Pages: 741–741

Head Matter:
Michael Contrez JONES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Frank L. PERRY, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 16-7189
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 28, 2017
Decided: May 24, 2017
Michael Contrez Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Andrew Regulski, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael Contrez Jones seeks to appeal the district court's orders dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition and denying reconsideration. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certifícate 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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, 120 S.Ct. 1595.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Jones has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Jones' motion for a certifícate of appealability and his motion for appointment of counsel, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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