Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Jayson JONES, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-11-07
Citations: 700 F. App'x 300
Docket Number: No. 17-6844
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Jayson JONES, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 700
Pages: 300–301

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Jayson JONES, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-6844
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: October 24, 2017
Decided: November 7, 2017
Robert Jayson Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa Rae McKeel, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Ap-pellee.
Before TRAXLER, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Robert Jayson Jones seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (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, 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 jdemonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the motion 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 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 this court and argument would not aid in the decisional process.
DISMISSED