US v. Michael Jone
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion for other relief [999724401-2], granting Motion for other relief [999742730-2]; denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [999742733-2]; denying Motion to expand certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [999742734-2] Originating case number: 5:11-cr-00099-FL-1,5:13-cv-00781-FL Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999849501]. Mailed to: Michael Jones. [15-7743]
Appeal: 15-7743
Doc: 13
Filed: 06/10/2016
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7743
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL ANTHONY JONES, a/k/a Spunk,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (5:11-cr-00099-FL-1; 5:13-cv-00781-FL)
Submitted:
April 29, 2016
Decided:
June 10, 2016
Before KING, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Anthony Jones, Appellant Pro Se. James Bradsher, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 15-7743
Doc: 13
Filed: 06/10/2016
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Michael Anthony Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s
order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.
The order
is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability.
A
certificate
of
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
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.
Slack
satisfies
jurists
this
would
of
the
v.
McDaniel,
standard
find
U.S.
that
the
claims
constitutional
529
by
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
motion
states
claim of the denial of a constitutional right.
a
debatable
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’ motion to adopt and incorporate the district
court records and his motion to amend his application for a
2
Appeal: 15-7743
Doc: 13
certificate
of
Filed: 06/10/2016
Pg: 3 of 3
appealability,
we
deny
his
motion
for
a
certificate of appealability, amended motion for a certificate
of
appealability,
and
motion
to
expand
appealability, and we dismiss the appeal.
the
certificate
of
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
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?