Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-06911/USCOURTS-ca4-09-06911-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Arnold Lloyd Jackson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6911

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ARNOLD LLOYD JACKSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Samuel G. Wilson, 

District Judge. (5:02-cr-30020-sgw-mfu-13; 5:07-cv-80014-sgwmfu)

Submitted: March 30, 2010 Decided: April 2, 2010

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Arnold Lloyd Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Jean Barrett Hudson, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia; 

Ryan Lee Souders, Jeb Thomas Terrien, Assistant United States 

Attorneys, Harrisonburg, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 09-6911 Doc: 26 Filed: 04/02/2010 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Arnold Lloyd Jackson seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 

Supp. 2009) motion. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). 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 deny 

Jackson’s motions for appointment of counsel. 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: 09-6911 Doc: 26 Filed: 04/02/2010 Pg: 2 of 2