Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eugene Ernst JACKSON, a/k/a Doot, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-06-01
Citations: 184 F. App'x 307
Docket Number: No. 05-7350
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Eugene Ernst JACKSON, a/k/a Doot, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 184
Pages: 307–308

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Eugene Ernst JACKSON, a/k/a Doot, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-7350.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 3, 2006.
Decided: June 1, 2006.
Eugene Ernst Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Joseph Peters, Sr., Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Eugene Ernst Jackson seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. This order is not appealable 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 the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. See 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 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Jackson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Jackson's motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. Because this court has already received Jackson's records from the district court, we deny as moot Jackson's motion to compel. 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.