Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Jones v. McCabe, 04-6516 (2004)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 04-6516 Visitors: 49
Filed: Jul. 22, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6516 ALEXANDER JONES, Petitioner - Appellant, versus SHERWOOD R. MCCABE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-03-523-5-BO) Submitted: July 15, 2004 Decided: July 22, 2004 Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alexander Jones, Appellant Pro
More
                             UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 04-6516



ALEXANDER JONES,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


SHERWOOD R. MCCABE,

                                            Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief
District Judge. (CA-03-523-5-BO)


Submitted:   July 15, 2004                 Decided:   July 22, 2004


Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Alexander Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III,
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

           Alexander Jones appeals from the denial of his 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 (2000) petition.     An appeal may not be taken to this court

from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a circuit

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.    28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000).   A prisoner satisfies this

standard by demonstrating that jurists of reason would find that

his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong.    See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 
537 U.S. 322
, 336 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 
529 U.S. 473
, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 
252 F.3d 676
, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).

           We have reviewed the record and conclude that Jones has

not made the requisite showing. We therefore deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal.        We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid in the decisional process.



                                                           DISMISSED




                                 - 2 -

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer