Court Opinion

ID: 1026046
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-05 06:59:55.076149+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:28:42.035788
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                               No. 07-7719

BENJAMIN MAURICE JONES,

                  Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

R. DAVID MITCHELL,

                  Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Graham C. Mullen,
Senior District Judge. (5:05-cv-00248-GCM)

Submitted:    April 30, 2008                 Decided:   June 24, 2008

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Benjamin Maurice Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge,
III, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Benjamin Maurice Jones seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000)

petition.   The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or

judge   issues   a   certificate   of    appealability.         See    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.       See    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 -