US v. Oshay Jone

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:13-cr-00038-MFU-RSB-1, 7:16-cv-80894-MFU-RSB. Copies to all parties and the district court. [1000255917]. Mailed to: Oshay Jones. [17-6484]

Appeal: 17-6484

Doc: 21

Filed: 03/12/2018

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6484

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
OSHAY TERRELL JONES,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Roanoke. Michael F. Urbanski, Chief District Judge. (7:13-cr-00038-MFU-RSB-1;
7:16-cv-80894-MFU-RSB)

Submitted: February 28, 2018

Decided: March 12, 2018

Before FLOYD and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed in part, affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Oshay Terrell Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Andrew Bassford, Assistant United
States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 17-6484

Doc: 21

Filed: 03/12/2018

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Oshay Terrell Jones appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 (2012) motion. We granted a partial certificate of appealability and ordered the
Government to respond on the issue of whether the district court abused its discretion in
denying, without an evidentiary hearing, Jones’ claim that he rejected a favorable plea
offer based on his trial counsel’s allegedly erroneous advice. We now affirm in part and
dismiss in part.
In its response brief, the Government contends that Jones abandoned the claim on
which we granted a certificate of appealability. We agree. Jones requested that the
district court strike the claim, and Jones thereafter failed to present any further argument
on the claim in the district court. Jones’ assertion that he was, in fact, requesting that the
district court strike the Government’s arguments on the claim is not credible.
Accordingly, we affirm the portion of the district court’s order dismissing this claim. See
United States ex rel. Drakeford v. Tuomey, 792 F.3d 364, 375 (4th Cir. 2015).
We have independently reviewed the record as to Jones’ remaining claims and
conclude that Jones is not entitled to a certificate of appealability on those claims. See 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Accordingly,
we deny a certificate of appealability as to those claims and dismiss that portion of the
appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

2

Appeal: 17-6484

Doc: 21

Filed: 03/12/2018

Pg: 3 of 3

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED IN PART;
AFFIRMED IN PART

3