Harry Jones v. State of North Carolina, 4th Cir. (2014)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsHarry Jones v. State of North Carolina, 4th Cir. (2014)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsUNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6942
HARRY JAMES JONES,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville.
Frank D. Whitney,
Chief District Judge. (1:13-cv-00342-FDW)
Submitted:
September 23, 2014
Before NIEMEYER and
Senior Circuit Judge.
GREGORY,
Decided:
Circuit
September 26, 2014
Judges,
and
HAMILTON,
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Harry James 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Harry James Jones seeks to appeal the district courts
orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. 2254 (2012) petition
and denying his motion for a certificate of appealability.
The
order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues
a certificate of appealability.
(2012).
See 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1)(A)
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
courts
debatable
or
prisoner
reasonable
assessment
wrong.
When the district court denies
Slack
satisfies
jurists
this
would
of
the
v.
McDaniel,
standard
find
constitutional
529
U.S.
by
that
the
claims
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 petition 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 Jones motion to attach an amendment to his informal brief
that was not before the district court, deny a certificate of
appealability, and dismiss the appeal.
2
We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
