Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Andrew Timothy JONES, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-06-26
Citations: 282 F. App'x 275
Docket Number: No. 08-6271
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Andrew Timothy JONES, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 282
Pages: 275–276

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Andrew Timothy JONES, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 08-6271.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 12, 2008.
Decided: June 26, 2008.
Andrew Timothy Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Keith Michael Cave, Adam Christopher Morris, Office of the United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Andrew Timothy Jones seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and his motion for reconsideration. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate 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 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 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.