US v. Torrance Jone, No. 10-6321 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6321 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TORRANCE JONES, a/k/a Tube, Defendant Appellant. No. 10-6324 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TORRANCE JONES, a/k/a Tube, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:96-cr-00079-BO-1; 5:10-cv-00017-BO) Submitted: October 5, 2010 Decided: December 2, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Torrance Jones, Appellant Pro Se in No. 10-6321; Clayton Reed Kaeiser, CLAYTON R. KAEISER, PA, Miami, Florida, for Appellant in No. 10-6324. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Torrance Jones seeks to appeal the district court s orders treating his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 2006 & Supp. 2010) petition and his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as successive 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motions, and dismissing them on that basis. justice or The orders are not appealable unless a circuit judge issues certificates of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district debatable court s or assessment wrong. of Slack the constitutional v. McDaniel, 529 claims U.S. is 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at the 484-85. conclude that We have Jones independently has not made reviewed the record requisite and showing. Accordingly, we deny certificates of appealability and dismiss 3 the appeals. We also deny Jones motion to appoint counsel in No. 10-6321. Additionally, we construe Jones notice of appeal in No. 10-6324 and informal brief as second or successive § 2255 motion. 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. an application to file a United States v. Winestock, 2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims evidence, not would based sufficient be evidence that, previously but to for on either: discoverable establish (1) newly by by due clear constitutional error, discovered diligence, that and convincing no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense; or (2) a new rule of constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255(h). either of these criteria. Jones claims do not satisfy Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. DISMISSED 4
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.
