Court Opinion

ID: 1026004
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-05 06:59:26.861744+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:11.695599
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 08-6271

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

ANDREW TIMOTHY JONES,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.     Frank D. Whitney,
District Judge. (3:03-cr-00055-FDW-DCK-1; 3:07-cv-00373-FDW)

Submitted:   June 12, 2008                 Decided:   June 26, 2008

Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Andrew Timothy Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Keith Michael Cave, Adam
Christopher Morris, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Andrew Timothy Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s

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

motion for reconsideration.         The orders are 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    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 -