US v. Mark Jones, Sr.
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [999955543-2], denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [1000022543-2] Originating case number: 2:14-cr-00132-LRL-2,2:16-cv-00106-RGD-LRL Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000032301]. Mailed to: appellant. [16-7477]
Appeal: 16-7477
Doc: 9
Filed: 02/28/2017
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-7477
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARK J. JONES, SR., a/k/a Mark Jacob Jones, Sr.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Robert G. Doumar, Senior
District Judge. (2:14-cr-00132-LRL-2; 2:16-cv-00106-RGD-LRL)
Submitted:
February 23, 2017
Decided:
February 28, 2017
Before SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mark J. Jones, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.
Kevin Patrick Hudson,
Alan Mark Salsbury, Assistant United States Attorneys, Joseph
Kosky, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 16-7477
Doc: 9
Filed: 02/28/2017
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Mark J. Jones, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court’s
order 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
(2012).
of
appealability.
28
U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1)(B)
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.
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, we deny
Jones’ motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
appeal.
legal
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
contentions
are
adequately
2
presented
in
the
materials
Appeal: 16-7477
before
Doc: 9
this
Filed: 02/28/2017
court
and
Pg: 3 of 3
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?