Tehgrain Jamal Jones v. Director
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:15-cv-00265-HEH-RCY Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000020651]. Mailed to: Jones. [16-7217]
Appeal: 16-7217
Doc: 8
Filed: 02/09/2017
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-7217
TEHGRAIN JAMAL JONES,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
DIRECTOR OF THE VA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:15-cv-00265-HEH-RCY)
Submitted:
January 31, 2017
Decided:
February 9, 2017
Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tehgrain Jamal Jones, Appellant Pro Se.
Donald Eldridge
Jeffrey, III, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 16-7217
Doc: 8
Filed: 02/09/2017
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Tehgrain Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition.
The
order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues
a certificate of appealability.
(2012).
See 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: 16-7217
Doc: 8
contentions
Filed: 02/09/2017
are
adequately
Pg: 3 of 3
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?