Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 14 views

    United States v. Jones, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Torrance Jones appealed the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition and Rule 60(b) motion as successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motions. The appellate court denied certificates of appealability, finding that Jones did not demonstrate the denial of a constitutional right. The court also construed Jones' notice of appeal as a request to file a second/successive §2255 motion but denied authorization because Jones' claims did not satisfy the criteria of §2255(h) regarding newly discovered evidence or a new retroactive rule of constitutional law. The appeals were dismissed.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Jones, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    14 views4 pages
    Torrance Jones appealed the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition and Rule 60(b) motion as successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motions. The appellate court denied certificates of appealability, finding that Jones did not demonstrate the denial of a constitutional right. The court also construed Jones' notice of appeal as a request to file a second/successive §2255 motion but denied authorization because Jones' claims did not satisfy the criteria of §2255(h) regarding newly discovered evidence or a new retroactive rule of constitutional law. The appeals were dismissed.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2010-12-02 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 10-6321

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Torrance Jones appealed the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition and Rule 60(b) motion as successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motions. The appellate court denied certificates of appealability, finding that Jones did not demonstrate the denial of a constitutional right. The court also construed Jones' notice of appeal as a request to file a second/successive §2255 motion but denied authorization because Jones' claims did not satisfy the criteria of §2255(h) regarding newly discovered evidence or a new retroactive rule of constitutional law. The appeals were dismissed.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    14 views4 pages

    United States v. Jones, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Torrance Jones appealed the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition and Rule 60(b) motion as successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motions. The appellate court denied certificates of appealability, finding that Jones did not demonstrate the denial of a constitutional right. The court also construed Jones' notice of appeal as a request to file a second/successive §2255 motion but denied authorization because Jones' claims did not satisfy the criteria of §2255(h) regarding newly discovered evidence or a new retroactive rule of constitutional law. The appeals were dismissed.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 4

    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.

    PER CURIAM:
    Torrance Jones seeks to appeal the district courts
    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

    courts
    or

    assessment

    wrong.

    Slack

    of

    the

    constitutional

    v.

    McDaniel,

    529

    U.S.

    claims

    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

    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

    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

    United States v. Winestock,

    2003).

    In

    order

    to

    obtain

    authorization to file a successive 2255 motion, a prisoner


    must

    assert

    evidence,
    would

    not

    be

    evidence

    claims

    based

    previously

    sufficient
    that,

    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

    You might also like