Court Opinion

ID: 1021181
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 23:02:20.230438+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:07:35.932723
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 06-7388

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

WILLIAM LEE JONES, JR.,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr.,
District Judge. (2:02-cr-00019; 2:04-cv-01124)

Submitted:   November 15, 2006        Decided:   November 27, 2006

Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Lee Jones, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.  Charles T. Miller,
Acting United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            William Lee Jones, Jr., seeks to appeal the district

court’s orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge

and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and

denying    his    motion   for   reconsideration.         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 that any assessment of the constitutional claims

by   the   district    court     is   debatable    or   wrong   and   that   any

dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise

debatable.       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 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 -