Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06066/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06066-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6066

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

LEWIS CARNELL JACKSON, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, 

District Judge. (5:07-cr-00110-FL-1; 5:12-cv-00205-FL) 

Submitted: July 20, 2015 Decided: July 22, 2015

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

William Lee Davis, III, Lumberton, North Carolina, for Appellant. 

Jennifer P. May-Parker, Ethan A. Ontjes, Assistant United States 

Attorneys, Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, 

Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

Appeal: 15-6066 Doc: 16 Filed: 07/22/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM: 

Lewis Carnell Jackson seeks to appeal the district court’s 

December 2014 order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate 

judge and denying relief on his claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012)

that counsel rendered ineffective assistance by not communicating 

a plea agreement to him prior to trial. 

This 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 

his motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the 

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

Appeal: 15-6066 Doc: 16 Filed: 07/22/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-6066 Doc: 16 Filed: 07/22/2015 Pg: 3 of 3