Court Opinion

ID: 1013814
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 21:07:09.645146+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:25.344036
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 04-6516

ALEXANDER JONES,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

SHERWOOD R. MCCABE,

                                            Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief
District Judge. (CA-03-523-5-BO)

Submitted:   July 15, 2004                 Decided:   July 22, 2004

Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alexander Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III,
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Alexander Jones appeals from the denial of his 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 (2000) petition.     An appeal may not be taken to this court

from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding 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 jurists of reason would find that

his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong.    See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).

           We have reviewed the record and conclude that Jones has

not made the requisite showing. We therefore 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 in the decisional process.

                                                           DISMISSED

                                 - 2 -