US v. James Jone, No. 10-7068 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on December 1, 2010.
Download PDF
ON REHEARING UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7068 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JAMES ERIC JONES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (4:06-cr-01238-TLW-1; 4:10-cv-70156-TLW) Submitted: February 23, 2011 Before SHEDD and Circuit Judge. AGEE, Circuit Decided: Judges, and March 23, 2011 HAMILTON, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Eric Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: James Eric Jones petitions for rehearing of his appeal of the district court s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion. In our prior opinion, we denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal. In his rehearing petition, Jones correctly notes that the district court granted a certificate of appealability as to all issues raised in his § 2255 motion in its order denying relief on that motion. Accordingly, we grant panel rehearing and vacate our initial opinion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. 1; United States v. Jones, Nos. 4:06-cr-01238-TLW- 4:10-cv-70156-TLW (D.S.C. July 22, 2010). Jones also requested to expand the certificate of appealability to consider additional claims. claims are without We grant his request, but conclude that his merit. 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. AFFIRMED 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.
