Court Opinion

ID: 1019547
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 22:37:09.480867+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:50.705737
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 06-6244

DAVON JONES,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

EMILIO PAGAN, Superintendent,

                                            Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham.   Frank W. Bullock, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (1:05-cv-00108-FWB)

Submitted: May 18, 2006                        Decided: May 31, 2006

Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Davon Jones, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

           Davon Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000).

The order is 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 both that the

district   court’s   assessment   of   the   constitutional    claims   is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by

the district court are also debatable or wrong.           Miller-El v.

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.

473, 484 (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

                                  - 2 -