Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Allen JONES, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-02-21
Citations: 167 F. App'x 965
Docket Number: No. 05-7052
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Michael Allen JONES, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 167
Pages: 965–966

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Michael Allen JONES, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-7052.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 16, 2006.
Decided: Feb. 21, 2006.
Michael Allen Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Alston Calhoun Badger, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Michael Allen Jones, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order granting summary judgment to the Government and denying relief on his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The order is not appealable unless this Court issues a certifícate of appealability. 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 the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims 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 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