Court Opinion

ID: 9404758
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-24 21:00:42.260921+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:16.931911
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7062      Doc: 11         Filed: 06/23/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 21-7062

        JACK JONES,

                             Petitioner - Appellant,

                      v.

        SEAN STRAWN,

                             Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
        Wheeling. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (5:19-cv-00163-JPB-RWT)

        Submitted: November 30, 2022                                      Decided: June 23, 2023

        Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, HEYTENS, Circuit Judge, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Jack Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Lindsay Sara See, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
        GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-7062         Doc: 11       Filed: 06/23/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Jack Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.

        § 2254 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)(A). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies

        this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s

        assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct.

        759, 773-74 (2017).

               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 this court and argument would not aid the

        decisional process.

                                                                                        DISMISSED

                                                      2