Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-19-07297/USCOURTS-ca4-19-07297-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Sylvester Monroe Jackson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7297

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

SYLVESTER MONROE JACKSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at 

Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge. (7:15-cr-00094-GEC-1; 7:18-cv-81335-GECPMS)

Submitted: January 23, 2020 Decided: January 28, 2020

Before WYNN, DIAZ, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sylvester Monroe Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Rachel Barish Swartz, Special Assistant 

United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, 

Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7297 Doc: 6 Filed: 01/28/2020 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Sylvester Monroe Jackson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief 

on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2018) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2018). 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) (2018). 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 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

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7297 Doc: 6 Filed: 01/28/2020 Pg: 2 of 2