US v. Jones, No. 05-7933 (4th Cir. 2006)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7933 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LEROY DAVID JONES, a/k/a Fats, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (CR04-168) Submitted: July 12, 2006 Decided: July 20, 2006 Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Leroy David Jones, Appellant Pro Se. John Francis Purcell, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Leroy David Jones seeks to appeal the district court s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); 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. U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). demonstrating that 28 A prisoner satisfies this standard by 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 further deny Jones request for the entry of a default judgment in his favor and for the production of certain documents. facts and legal We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are - 2 - adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED - 3 -

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.