US v. Reginald Jone

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. [1000007296]. Mailed to: Jonathan Philip Holbrook; Reginald Jones. [16-7346]

Appeal: 16-7346

Doc: 5

Filed: 01/20/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7346

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
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)

Submitted:

January 17, 2017

Decided:

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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7346

Doc: 5

Filed: 01/20/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Reginald Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s order
and

judgment

motion.
judge

denying

relief

his

28

U.S.C.

§ 2255

(2012)

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
issue

on

absent

“a

of

28

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

appealability.

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 motion 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: 16-7346

Doc: 5

contentions

Filed: 01/20/2017

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

3