Court Opinion

ID: 2644168
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-11-26 19:29:15.204494+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:17:30.656459
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 13-7364

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

CHARLIE LOUIS JONES,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.     James C. Dever III,
Chief District Judge. (5:11-cr-00095-D-1; 5:12-cv-00649-D)

Submitted:   November 21, 2013            Decided:   November 26, 2013

Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charlie Louis Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Charlie      Louis    Jones       seeks    to    appeal     the    district

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West

Supp.    2013)    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

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                               DISMISSED

                                   3