Court Opinion

ID: 149439
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-06-24 17:45:17+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:24:10.777939
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 09-7994

DAVID ANTHONY JONES, a/k/a David Aziz Shabazz,

                Petitioner – Appellant,

          v.

DANIEL T. MAHON, Warden,

                Respondent – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
Judge. (1:09-cv-00920-GBL-IDD)

Submitted:   June 17, 2010                       Decided:   June 24, 2010

Before MOTZ and    KING,     Circuit   Judges,    and   HAMILTON,   Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Anthony Jones, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

            David        Anthony     Jones    seeks      to    appeal       the   district

court’s    order    denying        relief    on    his   28    U.S.C.     § 2254    (2006)

petition.     The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice

or judge issues a certificate of appealability.                           See 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2006).           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) (2006).                 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    (2000);     see    Miller-El    v.    Cockrell,        537    U.S.    322,   336-38

(2003).     When the district court denies relief on procedural

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right.                            Slack,

529 U.S. at 484-85.           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

                                             2
before   the   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional

process.

                                                                   DISMISSED

                                    3