The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
04-6516•Alexander Jones v. Sherwood R. McCabe
04-6516Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitJul 22, 2004
UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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).
-- 1 of 2 --
- 2 -
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 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.