United States v. Rodney Jones

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
United States v. Rodney Jones, 548 F. App'x 897 (4th Cir. 2013)

United States v. Rodney Jones

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7184

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

RODNEY EDWARD JONES,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (4:07-cr-00110-AWA-JEB-1; 4:09-cv-00076-JBF- DEM)

Submitted: December 16, 2013 Decided: December 20, 2013

Before KEENAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rodney Edward Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward Bradenham, II, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Rodney Edward Jones seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his

28 U.S.C. § 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

Reference

Status
Unpublished