United States v. Harold Jackson ( 2011 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-7744
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
HAROLD ELLIS JACKSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District
Judge. (1:02-cr-00305-WDQ-1; 1:09-cv-02721-WDQ)
Submitted: June 30, 2011 Decided: August 19, 2011
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Harold Ellis Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. James G. Warwick, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Harold Ellis Jackson appeals from the district court’s
order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion, which alleged
that the court erred in recharacterizing a filing with the court
as his first 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011) motion. The
order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues
a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006).
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) (2006). 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).
Our review of the record reveals that the district
court failed to give Jackson notice of its intent to
recharacterize his pleading as a § 2255 motion, as required by
the Supreme Court’s decision in Castro v. United States, 540
U.S. 375, 383 (2003). See also United States v. Blackstock, 513
F.3d 128, 132-35 (4th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, we grant a
certificate of appealability on Jackson’s claim that the
district court erred in recharacterizing his pleading without
2
notice, vacate the district court’s order, and remand for
further proceedings. On remand, the district court should also
consider whether Jackson’s Rule 60(b) motion was timely filed.
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.
VACATED AND REMANDED
3