United States of America v. Leonard Tyrone Jones

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-7017
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LEONARD TYRONE JONES,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:05-cr-00387-CMH-1; 1:07-cv-00851-CMH)
Submitted: October 14, 2008 Decided: October 20, 2008
Before KING, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Leonard Tyrone Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan Leo Fahey,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Leonard Tyrone Jones seeks to appeal the district
court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000)
motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or
j u d g e i s s u e s a c e r t i f i c a t e o f a p p e a l a b i l i t y . 2 8 U . S . C .
§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not
i s s u e a b s e n t “ a s u b s t a n t i a l s h o w i n g o f t h e d e n i a l o f a
constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A
p r i s o n e r s a t i s f i e s t h i s s t a n d a r d b y d e m o n s t r a t i n g t h a t
reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the
constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or
wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district
court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S.
322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484
(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). 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. We
d i s p e n s e w i t h o r a l a r g u m e n t b e c a u s e t h e f a c t s a n d l e g a l
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 2 of 2 --