United States v. Howard Jones

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6765 Doc: 7 Filed: 06/12/2025 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-6765 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. HOWARD JONES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Richard E. Myers, II, Chief District Judge. (4:20-cr-00067-M-1; 4:23-cv- 00125-M) Submitted: April 17, 2025 Decided: June 12, 2025 Before AGEE and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Howard Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-6765 Doc: 7 Filed: 06/12/2025 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Howard Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a person who is incarcerated satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the person who is incarcerated must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). 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 dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED * Although the district court procedurally erred in its determination that Jones’ amended responses to the Government’s motion to dismiss were untimely, see Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988), the court also held that the claims raised in the amended responses did not state a claim for relief. We conclude that this holding is not debatable or wrong. 2