Rodney Jones v. Kieran Shanahan

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:12-cv-00304-RJC. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999434925]. Mailed to: Rodney Jones. [14-6564]

Appeal: 14-6564

Doc: 7

Filed: 09/12/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6564

RODNEY MOUCELL JONES,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
KIERAN J. SHANAHAN, Secretary, North Carolina Department of
Public Safety,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville.
Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., District Judge. (1:12-cv-00304-RJC)

Submitted:

August 28, 2014

Decided:

September 12, 2014

Before WILKINSON, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rodney Moucell Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge,
III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-6564

Doc: 7

Filed: 09/12/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

Moucell

seeks

PER CURIAM:
Rodney
court’s

order

petition.

denying

Jones

relief

on

to

his

28

appeal
U.S.C.

district

§ 2254

(2012)

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice

or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).
issue

the

absent

“a

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

See 28 U.S.C.

showing

of

the

denial

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).

of

a

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.

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484

Cockrell,

(2000);

(2003).

see

Miller-El

v.

537

U.S.

322,

336-38

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,

529 U.S. at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Jones has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
dispense

with

oral

argument

because

2

the

facts

and

We

legal

Appeal: 14-6564

Doc: 7

contentions

Filed: 09/12/2014

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3