Johnnie Nell Jones, Jr. v. Commonwealth of Virginia

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:14-cv-00343-HEH-RCY Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999705897]. Mailed to: Johnnie Nell Jones Jr. INDIAN CREEK CORRECTIONAL CENTER 801 Sanderson Road P. O. Box 16481 Chesapeake, VA 23328-6481. [15-7186]

Appeal: 15-7186

Doc: 7

Filed: 11/24/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7186

JOHNNIE NELL JONES, JR., a/k/a Jonnie Nell Jones, Jr.,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director,
Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:14-cv-00343-HEH-RCY)

Submitted:

November 19, 2015

Decided:

November 24, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Johnnie Nell Jones, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Kathleen Beatty
Martin, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7186

Doc: 7

Filed: 11/24/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Johnnie
court’s

Nell

order

Jones,

accepting

Jr.,
the

seeks

to

appeal

recommendation

of

the
the

district

magistrate

judge and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition.

The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues
a

certificate

(2012).

of

appealability.

28

U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)(A)

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).
relief

on

the

demonstrating
district

merits,
that

court’s

debatable

or

a

When the district court denies

prisoner

reasonable

assessment

wrong.

satisfies

jurists

would

of

the

v.

McDaniel,

Slack

this

standard

find

constitutional
529

U.S.

by

that

the

claims

is

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 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.
a

certificate

dispense

with

of

appealability

oral

argument

and

dismiss

because

2

Accordingly, we deny

the

the

appeal.

facts

and

We
legal

Appeal: 15-7186

Doc: 7

contentions

Filed: 11/24/2015

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3