Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-06105/USCOURTS-ca4-07-06105-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6105

ROBERT MALCOLM JACKSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

JAMES V. PEGEUSE, Warden; JOSEPH CURRAN, JR.,

Attorney General for the State of Maryland,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge.

(1:05-cv-00547-AMD)

Submitted: October 24, 2007 Decided: November 16, 2007

Before TRAXLER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Malcolm Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr.,

Edward John Kelley, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND,

Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-6105 Doc: 21 Filed: 11/16/2007 Pg: 1 of 2
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Robert Malcolm Jackson seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000)

petition. The order is 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 also deny Jackson’s

motion for correction or modification of the record. 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

Appeal: 07-6105 Doc: 21 Filed: 11/16/2007 Pg: 2 of 2