Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Orrin Lamar JACKSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-05-25
Citations: 689 F. App'x 751
Docket Number: No. 16-7557
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Orrin Lamar JACKSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 689
Pages: 751–752

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Orrin Lamar JACKSON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-7557
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 23, 2017
Decided: May 25, 2017
Orrin Lamar Jackson, Appellant Pro Se, Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Orrin Lamar Jackson seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his second motion for reconsideration of the denial of 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 ap-pealability 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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, 120 S.Ct. 1595.
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