Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Jones, 4th Cir. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views2 pages
    Michael Eugene Jones sought to appeal the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion for post-conviction relief. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that a certificate of appealability was required but would not be issued unless Jones made a substantial showing that his constitutional rights were denied. Upon independent review, the court concluded that Jones had not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, the court denied Jones' motion for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal without oral argument.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2007-06-21 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 07-6181

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Michael Eugene Jones sought to appeal the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion for post-conviction relief. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that a certificate of appealability was required but would not be issued unless Jones made a substantial showing that his constitutional rights were denied. Upon independent review, the court concluded that Jones had not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, the court denied Jones' motion for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal without oral argument.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    2 views2 pages

    United States v. Jones, 4th Cir. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Michael Eugene Jones sought to appeal the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion for post-conviction relief. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that a certificate of appealability was required but would not be issued unless Jones made a substantial showing that his constitutional rights were denied. Upon independent review, the court concluded that Jones had not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, the court denied Jones' motion for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal without oral argument.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 07-6181

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    MICHAEL EUGENE JONES, a/k/a Big Mike,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
    District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Frederick P. Stamp,
    Jr., District Judge. (3:00-cr-00027-FPS; 3:04-cv-19)

    Submitted: June 15, 2007

    Decided:

    June 21, 2007

    Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Michael Eugene Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Oliver Mucklow,


    Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Michael Eugene Jones seeks to appeal the district courts
    order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
    denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. 2255 (2000) motion.
    not

    appealable

    unless

    circuit

    certificate of appealability.

    justice

    or

    The order is

    judge

    issues

    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1) (2000).

    certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial


    showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

    2253(c)(2)

    (2000).

    prisoner

    satisfies

    this

    28 U.S.C.
    standard

    by

    demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find the district


    courts assessment of his constitutional claims debatable and that
    any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also
    debatable or wrong.

    See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336

    (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee,
    252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).

    We have independently

    reviewed the record and conclude that Jones has not made the
    requisite showing.

    Accordingly, we deny Jones motion for 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 the court and argument
    would not aid the decisional process.

    DISMISSED

    - 2 -

    You might also like