Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Jones v. Sacchet, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case in which James Nathaniel Jones sought to appeal the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The appeals court dismissed the case, finding that Jones had not made the requisite substantial showing that his constitutional rights were denied, as required to issue a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The appeals court conducted an independent review and concluded that reasonable jurists would not find the district court's assessment of Jones's constitutional claims to be debatable or wrong.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2006-12-01 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 06-7394

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case in which James Nathaniel Jones sought to appeal the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The appeals court dismissed the case, finding that Jones had not made the requisite substantial showing that his constitutional rights were denied, as required to issue a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The appeals court conducted an independent review and concluded that reasonable jurists would not find the district court's assessment of Jones's constitutional claims to be debatable or wrong.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    5 views2 pages

    Jones v. Sacchet, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case in which James Nathaniel Jones sought to appeal the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The appeals court dismissed the case, finding that Jones had not made the requisite substantial showing that his constitutional rights were denied, as required to issue a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The appeals court conducted an independent review and concluded that reasonable jurists would not find the district court's assessment of Jones's constitutional claims to be debatable or wrong.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 06-7394

    JAMES NATHANIEL JONES,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    JOSEPH SACCHET, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR
    THE STATE OF MARYLAND,
    Respondents - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Greenbelt.
    Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge.
    (8:05-cv-00661-DKC)

    Submitted: November 21, 2006

    Decided:

    December 1, 2006

    Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    James Nathaniel Jones, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr.,
    Attorney General, Edward John Kelley, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
    GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    James

    Nathaniel

    Jones

    seeks

    to

    appeal

    the

    district

    courts order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. 2254 (2000)


    petition.
    judge

    The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or

    issues

    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


    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 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 -

    You might also like