Jeremy Spell v. B. W. Jone

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999189039-2]; denying for certificate of appealability Originating case number: 1:13-cv-00966-AJT-TRJ Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999226405]. Mailed to: Jeremy Spell. [13-7350]

Appeal: 13-7350

Doc: 7

Filed: 10/25/2013

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7350

JEREMY TYRONE SPELL,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
B. W. JONES, Norfolk Police Department, Norfolk City Jail,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Anthony John Trenga,
District Judge. (1:13-cv-00966-AJT-TRJ)

Submitted:

October 22, 2013

Decided:

October 25, 2013

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeremy Tyrone Spell, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-7350

Doc: 7

Filed: 10/25/2013

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Jeremy
court’s

order

petition.
or

judge

Tyrone

denying

relief

seeks
on

his

to

appeal

28

U.S.C.

the

district

§ 2254

(2006)

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006).
issue

Spell

absent

“a

appealability.

28

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

of

showing

of

the

denial

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006).

of

a

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.

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.

473, 484-85 (2000).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Spell has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, 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