US v. Elijah Jone

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to amend/correct [998802524-2]; denying motion for transcript at government expense [998737712-2]. Originating case number: 6:07-cr-00704-HFF-1,6:10-cv-70268-HFF. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999014072]. Mailed to: Elijah Jones. [11-7477]

Appeal: 11-7477

Doc: 19

Filed: 01/03/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7477

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

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge.
(6:07-cr-00704-HFF-1; 6:10-cv-70268-HFF)

Submitted:

November 27, 2012

Decided:

January 3, 2013

Before AGEE, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Elijah Gaylon Jones, Appellant Pro Se.
William Corley Lucius,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-7477

Doc: 19

Filed: 01/03/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Elija
court’s

Jones

dismissing

order

Gaylon

as

(West Supp. 2012) motion.

seeks

to

untimely

appeal

his

28

the

district

U.S.C.A.

§

2255

The order is not appealable unless a

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
28

U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)(B)

(2006).

A

certificate

of

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right.”
(2006).

When the district court denies relief on the merits, a

prisoner

satisfies

this

reasonable

jurists

would

assessment

of

constitutional

wrong.

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)

the

standard
find

by

that

demonstrating

the

claims

district
is

that

court’s

debatable

or

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,

although we grant Jones’s motion to amend his informal brief, we
deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

We

deny Jones’s motion for transcripts at government expense.

See

28

U.S.C.

§ 753(f)

(2006).

We
2

dispense

with

oral

argument

Appeal: 11-7477

Doc: 19

Filed: 01/03/2013

Pg: 3 of 3

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3