US v. Nathaniel Jones, III, No. 09-6342 (4th Cir. 2009)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6342 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. NATHANIEL JONES, III, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:02-cr-00155-2; 1:07-cv-00921) Submitted: June 22, 2009 Decided: June 30, 2009 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nathaniel Jones, III, Appellant Pro Se. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, Paul Alexander Weinman, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Nathaniel court s order Jones, accepting III, the seeks to appeal recommendation of the the district magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2008) motion. justice or The order is not appealable unless a circuit judge issues a certificate U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). not issue absent constitutional prisoner reasonable a satisfies jurists constitutional 28 this by showing U.S.C. find the of the § 2253(c)(2) standard would claims appealability. 28 A certificate of appealability will substantial right. of that by assessment court is of (2006). demonstrating any district denial 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 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

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.