United States v. Aquilla Jones

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6702 Doc: 13 Filed: 06/01/2026 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-6702

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. AQUILLA JONES, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Arenda L. Wright Allen, Senior District Judge. (4:18-cr-00027-AWA- LRL-2; 4:25-cv-00075-AWA)

Submitted: May 28, 2026 Decided: June 1, 2026

Before WYNN, QUATTLEBAUM, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Aquilla Jones, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6702 Doc: 13 Filed: 06/01/2026 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Aquilla Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing her second 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as successive and unauthorized. * 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, as here, 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 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

* Jones has also filed several motions. We grant Jones’s motion for this court to accept her informal briefs as compliant with procedural rules and timely filed and we deny her motion to expedite decision and for appellate supervision.