Court Opinion

ID: 801616
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2012-06-05 18:59:48+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:10:42.930514
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 12-6048

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                 Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

CHARLES JONES,

                 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.     Liam O'Grady, District
Judge. (1:08-cr-00240-LO-3; 1:10-cv-01322-LO)

Submitted:   May 31, 2012                     Decided:   June 5, 2012

Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles Jones, Appellant Pro Se.            Lawrence Joseph Leiser,
Assistant United States Attorney,         Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Charles        Jones    seeks   to    appeal    the   district       court’s

order denying relief on 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

                                            2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                           DISMISSED

                                3