United States of America v. Blair R. Jones, Jr.

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-7839
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BLAIR R. JONES, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley,
District Judge. (1:07-cv-00115-IMK-JSK; 1:05-cr-00095-IMK-1)
Submitted: January 21, 2010 Decided: February 16, 2010
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Blair R. Jones, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. John Castle Parr,
Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

PER CURIAM:
Blair R. Jones, Jr., seeks to appeal the district
court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate
judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.
2009) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit
justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). A
prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that
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).
The district court concluded that Jones’ claims
challenging the validity of his conviction were barred by the
appellate waiver provision in his plea agreement. However, the
waiver applies only to claims challenging Jones’ sentence.
Nevertheless, although the district court committed a procedural
error by relying on the waiver provision to dismiss Jones’
§ 2255 motion, our independent review of the record confirms
that, on their merits, the claims Jones raised in his motion do
2

-- 2 of 3 --

3
not substantially show that his constitutional rights were
infringed. Accordingly, we deny Jones’ motion for a certificate
of appealability and all pending motions 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

-- 3 of 3 --