Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kevin Eugene JONES, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-10-11
Citations: 145 F. App'x 427
Docket Number: No. 05-6804
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kevin Eugene JONES, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 145
Pages: 427–427

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kevin Eugene JONES, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-6804.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 29, 2005.
Decided Oct. 11, 2005.
Kevin Eugene Jones, Appellant pro se.
Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Kevin Eugene Jones seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss his successive motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) for lack of jurisdiction. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a post-conviction proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability mil 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 his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336, 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 Jones' motion for 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