Tre'Vaughn Jackson v. Brian Kendall ( 2023 )

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6262 Doc: 7 Filed: 12/27/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-6262
TRE’VAUGHN JACKSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
BRIAN KENDALL, Warden, Lieber Correctional Institution,
Respondent - Appellee,
and
BRYAN STIRLING, Commissioner, South Carolina Department of Corrections,
Respondent.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Orangeburg. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (5:22-cv-00402-MGL)
Submitted: November 21, 2023 Decided: December 27, 2023
Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Elizabeth Anne Franklin-Best, ELIZABETH FRANKLIN-BEST, P.C., Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellant.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6262 Doc: 7 Filed: 12/27/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Tre’Vaughn Jackson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his
28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a
prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the
district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v.
Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural
grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is
debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional
right. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529
U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).
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 this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
2