UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7054
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JASON DORIAN JONES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior
District Judge. (CR-95-94; CA-05-209-5)
Submitted: May 16, 2006 Decided: May 18, 2006
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jason Dorian Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Frank DeArmon Whitney,
United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Jadon Dorian Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s
order and judgment dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 (2000) motion because it was successive. An appeal may not
be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a
circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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 the district court’s assessment of his
constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any
dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise
debatable. 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 Jones has not made the requisite showing.
Additionally, we construe Jones’ notice of appeal and
informal brief on appeal as an application to file a second or
successive § 2255 motion. See United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d
200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). To obtain authorization to file a
successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on
either: (1) a new rule of constitutional law, previously
unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on
- 2 -
collateral review; or (2) newly discovered evidence sufficient to
establish that no reasonable fact finder would have found the
movant guilty. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(3)(C), 2255 (2000). Jones’
claim does not satisfy either of these conditions.
For these reasons, we deny a certificate of
appealability, decline to authorize Jones to file a successive
§ 2255 motion, and dismiss the appeal. 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.
DISMISSED
- 3 -