United States v. Andrew Jones ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •                                      UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 19-7153
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    ANDREW TIMOTHY JONES,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
    Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, Chief District Judge. (3:03-cr-00055-FDW-DCK-1;
    3:19-cv-00239-FDW)
    Submitted: December 19, 2019                                      Decided: January 7, 2020
    Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Andrew Timothy Jones, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Andrew Timothy Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion
    to reopen the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) 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) (2012). 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) (2012). 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 contentions are
    adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the
    decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 19-7153

Filed Date: 1/7/2020

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/7/2020