US v. Ramone Jones
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RAMONE STEPHON JONES, a/k/a Duggie, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (8:03-cr-00321-AW-3; 8:08-cv-02210-AW)
October 15, 2009
October 22, 2009
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ramone Stephon Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Stacy Dawson Belf, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Ramone Stephon Jones seeks to appeal the district
court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009) motion. The order is not appealable unless a
circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability
will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional prisoner reasonable right." this would by 28 U.S.C. standard find the that § 2253(c)(2) by any (2006). A that the or
demonstrating assessment is of
wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S.
322, 336-38 (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 of requisite showing. and Accordingly, dismiss the the we deny a We legal
appealability oral argument
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED We decline to consider the claim raised by Jones in his informal brief that was not presented in his § 2255 motion in the district court. See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993). 2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?