Jurone Hammond v. John Wolfe

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6055 Doc: 5 Filed: 01/28/2026 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-6055

JURONE HAMMOND, Petitioner - Appellant, v. JOHN S. WOLFE, Warden, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.

Richard D. Bennett, Senior District Judge. (1:17-cv-03721-RDB)

Submitted: January 22, 2026 Decided: January 28, 2026

Before AGEE, RICHARDSON, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jurone Hammond, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6055 Doc: 5 Filed: 01/28/2026 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Jurone Hammond seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion to reopen construed by the court as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from the district court’s prior order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition and denying his motion for “copy work.” The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). See generally United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 400 & n.7 (4th Cir. 2015). 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, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (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 petition 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 Hammond 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED