Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eddie Thomas JACKSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-10-03
Citations: 201 F. App'x 926
Docket Number: No. 06-7026
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eddie Thomas JACKSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 201
Pages: 926–927

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eddie Thomas JACKSON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-7026.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 26, 2006.
Decided: Oct. 3, 2006.
Eddie Thomas Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Eddie Thomas Jackson seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying his Rule 60(b) motion and his Rule 59 motion challenged the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The orders are not appeal-able 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, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude Jackson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Jackson's motion to dismiss the charges. 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.