Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel Danny JONES, a/k/a Jay, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-03-14
Citations: 170 F. App'x 837
Docket Number: No. 05-7465
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Daniel Danny JONES, a/k/a Jay, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 170
Pages: 837–837

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Daniel Danny JONES, a/k/a Jay, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-7465.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 24, 2006.
Decided: March 14, 2006.
Daniel Danny Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Darryl James Mitchell, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Daniel Danny Jones seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. This order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appeal-ability. 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 the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (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