US v. Reginald Jone
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:08-cr-00282-F-3,5:16-cv-00777-F. Copies to all parties and the district court. . Mailed to: Jonathan Philip Holbrook; Reginald Jones. [16-7346]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
REGINALD JONES, a/k/a Little Head,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:08-cr-00282-F-3; 5:16-cv-00777-F)
January 17, 2017
January 20, 2017
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Reginald Jones, Appellant Pro Se.
Stephen Aubrey West,
Assistant United States Attorney, Jonathan Philip Holbrook,
Tobin Webb Lathan, Banumathi Rangarajan, Seth Morgan Wood,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina,
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
Reginald Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s order
The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or
§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
A certificate of appealability will not
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).
district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies
find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional
claims is debatable or wrong.
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,
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 a
debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right.
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
Pg: 3 of 3
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
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?