Court Opinion

ID: 2655646
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-03-05 19:36:51.203061+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:08.783969
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 13-7799

PHILLIP ALVIN JONES,

                 Petitioner - Appellant,

            v.

JAMES V.     PEGUESE,   Warden/Designee;    ATTORNEY   GENERAL   OF
MARYLAND,

                 Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.     J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
Judge. (1:12-cv-02337-JFM)

Submitted:   February 27, 2014                Decided:   March 5, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Phillip Alvin Jones, Appellant Pro Se.      Edward John Kelley,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland,
for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Phillip     Alvin     Jones    seeks     to    appeal       the    district

court’s order dismissing his two motions seeking reconsideration

of the order denying as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012)

petition.      The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice

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

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).            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) (2012).                 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, deny leave to proceed in

forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.                     We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

                                            2
presented in the materials before this court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

                                                      DISMISSED

                                  3