Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07938/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07938-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Antwan Lamar Jackson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7938

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ANTWAN LAMAR JACKSON, a/k/a Twan, a/k/a Mey-Mey,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon, Senior 

District Judge. (3:10-cr-00033-NKM-RSB-1; 3:14-cv-80732-NKM-RSB)

Submitted: April 19, 2016 Decided: April 21, 2016

Before AGEE, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Antwan Lamar Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Mitchell Huber, 

Jean Barrett Hudson, Assistant United States Attorneys, 

Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7938 Doc: 14 Filed: 04/21/2016 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Antwan Lamar Jackson seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) 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) (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 

Jackson’s motions for 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

Appeal: 15-7938 Doc: 14 Filed: 04/21/2016 Pg: 2 of 2