United States v. Alex Jones

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

United States v. Alex Jones

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7744 Doc: 11 Filed: 10/20/2022 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-7744

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ALEX ARNEZ JONES,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:16-cr-00124-FDW-DSC-1; 3:21-cv- 00097-FDW)

Submitted: October 18, 2022 Decided: October 20, 2022

Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alex Arnez Jones, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-7744 Doc: 11 Filed: 10/20/2022 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Alex Arnez Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his

28 U.S.C. § 2255

motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues

a certificate of appealability. See

28 U.S.C. § 2253

(c)(1)(B). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s

assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis,

137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74

(2017). 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. Gonzalez v.

Thaler,

565 U.S. 134, 140-41

(2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel,

529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000)).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Jones has not made

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Jones’ Request for Certificate of

Appealability and Motion for Appointed Counsel and dismiss the appeal. We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

2

Reference

Status
Unpublished