United States v. Jackson , 193 F. App'x 227 ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-6414
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
RICHARD RONTE JACKSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
District Judge. (4:02-cr-70040-FFF; 7:06-cv-00060)
Submitted: July 25, 2006 Decided: August 1, 2006
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Richard Ronte Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Ruth Elizabeth
Plagenhoef, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Richard Ronte Jackson seeks to appeal the district
court’s order dismissing Jackson’s “place holder motion challenging
subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331," which
the court properly construed as an unauthorized successive motion
under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). Jackson also appeals the district
court’s order denying his subsequent motion to amend under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 59(e).
The orders are not appealable 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
any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court
is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by
the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,
537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484
(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (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
- 2 -
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.*
DISMISSED
*
To the extent Jackson may be seeking authorization under 28
U.S.C. § 2244 (2000) to file a second and successive 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 (2000) motion on the basis of the rules announced in United
States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), we deny authorization.
- 3 -