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: 2004-05-21
Citations: 96 F. App'x 930
Docket Number: No. 04-6451
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Eddie Thomas JACKSON, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 96
Pages: 930–930

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Eddie Thomas JACKSON, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 04-6451.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 30, 2004.
Decided: May 21, 2004.
Eddie Thomas Jackson, Appellant pro se.
Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Eddie Thomas Jackson seeks to appeal the district court's judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appeal-ability. 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 his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336, 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 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED