Demetrius Jones, Jr v. KEVIN WENDT, Warden

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-6268
DEMETRIUS JONES, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
KEVIN WENDT, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Chief
District Judge. (1:05-cv-00053-IMK)
Submitted: October 4, 2006 Decided: October 18, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Demetrius Jones, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Betsy S. Jividen, Assistant
United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 2 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Demetrius Jones, Jr., a prisoner in custody under a
sentence imposed by a Superior Court of the District of Columbia,
seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28
U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable 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 reasonable jurists
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 independently reviewed
the record and conclude that Jones has not made the requisite
showing. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis,
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 the decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 2 of 2 --