Demond Wells v. Robert Jone, No. 11-6575 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6575 DEMOND WELLS, Petitioner Appellant, v. ROBERT G. JONES, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:09-hc-02046-BO) Submitted: July 21, 2011 Before NIEMEYER and Senior Circuit Judge. GREGORY, Decided: Circuit Judges, July 26, 2011 and HAMILTON, Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Demond Wells, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Hollis, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Demond order denying Wells his seeks Fed. to R. appeal Civ. the P. district 60(b) court s motion for reconsideration of the denial of Wells 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. or judge The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (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. Slack of 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 petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at the 484-85. conclude We that have Wells independently has not reviewed made a record requisite and 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 2 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.
