UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7032
ROBERT R. JONES,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia
Department of Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-98-1201-2)
Submitted: June 23, 2004 Decided: July 6, 2004
Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert R. Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Ruth M. McKeaney, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Robert R. Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying his motion to reopen the time to note an appeal from the
court’s prior order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
(2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254
proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of
appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of
appealability is required to appeal the district court’s order
denying Jones’ post-judgment motion. See Reid v. Angelone, No. 03-
6146, slip op. at 7 (4th Cir. May 19, 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) (2000).
A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable
jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and
that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are
also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322,
336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v.
Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). 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 also deny Jones’ motion
for transfer to another facility. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in
- 2 -
the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 3 -