Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nathaniel JONES, III, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-06-30
Citations: 328 F. App'x 225
Docket Number: No. 09-6342
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Nathaniel JONES, III, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 328
Pages: 225–226

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Nathaniel JONES, III, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 09-6342.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 22, 2009.
Decided: June 30, 2009.
Nathaniel Jones, III, Appellant Pro Se. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, Paul Alexander Weinman, Office of the United States Attorney, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Nathaniel Jones, III, seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2008) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certifi cate of appealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). 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, 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, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 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.