United States v. Jackson ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 06-6058
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    HENRY LEE JACKSON, JR.,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge.
    (CR-03-431; CA-04-22739-7)
    Submitted: February 23, 2006                    Decided: March 6, 2006
    Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Henry Lee Jackson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.      Alan Lance Crick,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Henry Lee Jackson, Jr., seeks to appeal the district
    court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     (2000).    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 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 Jackson 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 the court and argument would not
    aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    - 2 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-6058

Filed Date: 3/6/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021