US v. Dominique Jones, No. 13-7743 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7743 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DOMINIQUE ALEXANDER JONES, a/k/a Big Nique, a/k/a Nique, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (5:10-cr-00074-F-1; 5:11-cv-00686-F) Submitted: March 19, 2014 Decided: April 7, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dominique Alexander Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. MayParker, Assistant United States Attorney, Denise Walker, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Dominique Alexander Jones seeks to appeal the district court s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. motion and denying his motions to amend. appealable unless a circuit certificate of appealability. A certificate of justice § 2255 (2012) The order is not or judge issues a 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). relief on the demonstrating district merits, that court s debatable or a When the district court denies prisoner reasonable assessment wrong. Slack satisfies jurists this would of the v. McDaniel, standard find U.S. that the claims constitutional 529 by 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 claim of the denial of a constitutional right. a debatable Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Jones has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny his request for 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 this 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.
