Court Opinion

ID: 622155
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2012-02-04 01:05:04+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:57:34.629146
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 11-7298

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

ROBERT JONES,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (1:08-cr-00001-JCC-4; 1:11-cv-00402-JCC)

Submitted:   January 31, 2012             Decided:   February 3, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Jones, Appellant Pro Se.      Lawrence Joseph Leiser,
Assistant United States Attorney, Lisa Owings, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia; Steven Donald
Mellin, Assistant United States Attorney, Washington, DC, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Robert       Jones   seeks      to    appeal    the    district      court’s

order denying as untimely his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.

2011) motion.           The order is not appealable unless a circuit

justice    or    judge    issues   a   certificate         of    appealability.       28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (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 motion 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