David Jones v. Daniel Mahon

Filing 920100624

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7994

DAVID ANTHONY JONES, a/k/a David Aziz Shabazz, Petitioner ­ Appellant, v. DANIEL T. MAHON, Warden, Respondent ­ Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (1:09-cv-00920-GBL-IDD)

Submitted:

June 17, 2010

Decided:

June 24, 2010

Before MOTZ and Circuit Judge.

KING,

Circuit

Judges,

and

HAMILTON,

Senior

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Anthony Jones, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: David court's order Anthony denying Jones relief seeks on his to 28 appeal U.S.C. the district (2006)

§ 2254

petition.

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice See 28 U.S.C.

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). issue absent "a

A certificate of appealability will not showing of the denial of a

substantial

constitutional right."

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006).

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. 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 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 petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. 529 U.S. at 484-85. and conclude that Slack,

We have independently reviewed the record 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

2

before

the

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process. DISMISSED

3