Scribd
Upload
69 views3 pages

United States v. Michael Jones, 4th Cir. (2012)

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Michael Jones' appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as untimely. The district court judge had denied Jones' motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence on the grounds that it was not filed within the one-year statute of limitations. The appellate court determined that Jones did not make the requisite showing to receive a certificate of appealability, as he did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's ruling debatable or wrong. Therefore, the court dismissed the appeal without oral argument.

Uploaded by

Scribd Government Docs
Copyright
© Public Domain
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
69 views3 pages

United States v. Michael Jones, 4th Cir. (2012)

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Michael Jones' appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as untimely. The district court judge had denied Jones' motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence on the grounds that it was not filed within the one-year statute of limitations. The appellate court determined that Jones did not make the requisite showing to receive a certificate of appealability, as he did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's ruling debatable or wrong. Therefore, the court dismissed the appeal without oral argument.

Uploaded by

Scribd Government Docs
Copyright
© Public Domain
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7393

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL JONES,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
William D. Quarles, Jr., District
Judge. (1:09-cr-00287-WDQ-7; 1:11-cv-01765-WDQ)

Submitted:

March 29, 2012

Decided:

April 2, 2012

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Jones, Appellant Pro Se.


Christine Marie Celeste,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:
Michael

Jones

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

courts

order denying as untimely his 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 (West Supp.


2011) motion.
justice

or

The order is not appealable unless a circuit

judge

issues

certificate

U.S.C. 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006).

of

appealability.

28

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) (2006).

When the

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies


this

standard

by

demonstrating

that

reasonable

jurists

would

find that the district courts 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.

Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.


dispense

with

oral

argument

because

the

facts

and

We

legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the


court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

You might also like