UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6998
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
FREDDIE JONES, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 03-7622
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
FREDDIE JONES, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief
District Judge. (CR-96-79-BO; CR-96-79-5-BR; CA-00-42-5-BO)
Submitted: August 13, 2004 Decided: September 17, 2004
Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
No. 03-6998 dismissed; No. 03-7622 affirmed by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
Freddie Jones, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr.,
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
In No. 03-6998, Freddie Jones, Jr., appeals from the
district court’s April 23, 2003, order denying Jones’ motion
challenging his sentence as an unauthorized and successive 28
U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. In No. 03-7622, Jones appeals from
the district court’s October 10, 2003, order denying Jones’ motion
to alter or amend its April 23, 2003, order, and denying Jones’
“Motion for Court Ordered Subpoenas,” his “Motion for Judicial
Notice of Undisputed Facts,” and his “Motion to Strike or
Opposition to the Government’s Response.” By order filed January
30, 2004, Jones’ appeals were placed in abeyance for Jones v.
Braxton, No. 03-6891. In view of our recent decision in Reid v.
Angelone, 369 F.3d 363 (4th Cir. 2004), we no longer find it
necessary to hold this case in abeyance for Jones.
As to No. 03-6998, Jones cannot appeal the April 23, 2003,
order unless a circuit judge or justice issues a certificate of
appealability, and 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 habeas appellant meets
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, 326
(2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee,
- 3 -
252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have reviewed the record and
conclude the district court’s procedural ruling was proper; the
court did not err in dismissing Jones’ motion challenging his
sentence as a successive and unauthorized 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion;
and Jones has not made the requisite showing for a certificate of
appealability. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability
and dismiss the appeal. As to No. 03-7622, in which Jones
challenges only the court’s denial of his request for subpoenas, we
affirm the district court’s October 10, 2003, order, to the extent
it denied Jones’ motion for subpoenas. See United States v. Jones,
No. CR-96-79-BO (E.D.N.C., Oct. 10, 2003). We deny Jones’ motion
to deconsolidate his appeals. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in
the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
No. 03-6998 DISMISSED
No. 03-7622 AFFIRMED
- 4 -