US v. Mamie Jones, No. 08-7935 (4th Cir. 2008)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7935 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MAMIE LOUISE JONES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:05-cr-00314-BO-1; 5:07-cv-00333-BO) Submitted: December 16, 2008 Decided: December 29, 2008 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mamie Louise Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Steve R. Matheny, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Mamie Louise appeal the 28 U.S.C. § 2255 The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or certificate § 2253(c)(1) (2000). issue absent constitutional prisoner a substantial right. jurists constitutional of appealability. (2000) 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not satisfies reasonable her district motion. a on to order issues relief seeks court s judge denying Jones 28 U.S.C. this would claims showing by the the denial § 2253(c)(2) standard find of that district by of (2000). demonstrating any assessment court is a A that of debatable the or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. court is likewise debatable. 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. motion for appeal. legal before a certificate of Accordingly, we deny Jones appealability and dismiss the We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. DISMISSED 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.