United States v. Eugene Jackson , 586 F. App'x 127 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 14-7004
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff – Appellee,
    v.
    EUGENE ERNST JACKSON,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore.   William M. Nickerson, Senior District
    Judge. (1:01-cr-00464-WMN-1)
    Submitted:   November 18, 2014            Decided:   December 2, 2014
    Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Eugene Ernst Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Clinton Jacob Fuchs,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Eugene        Ernst   Jackson       seeks   to        appeal    the    district
    court’s    order    denying       relief   on    his    
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
           (2012)
    motion.    The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or
    judge     issues     a    certificate       of    appealability.              
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(1)(B) (2012).            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) (2012).                   When the
    district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies
    this    standard     by    demonstrating        that    reasonable         jurists       would
    find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional
    claims is debatable or wrong.               Slack v. McDaniel, 
    529 U.S. 473
    ,
    484    (2000);     see    Miller-El   v.    Cockrell,        
    537 U.S. 322
    ,       336-38
    (2003).     When the district court denies relief on procedural
    grounds, the prisoner 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.                                Slack,
    
    529 U.S. at 484-85
    .
    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
    2
    contentions   are   adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before
    this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-7004

Citation Numbers: 586 F. App'x 127

Judges: Motz, King, Gregory

Filed Date: 12/2/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024