Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marcus JACKSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-04-28
Citations: 687 F. App'x 294
Docket Number: No. 17-6253
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marcus JACKSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 687
Pages: 294–295

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marcus JACKSON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-6253
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 25, 2017
Decided: April 28, 2017
Marcus Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Seth Morgan Wood, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Ap-pellee.
Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Marcus Jackson seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend that judgment. The orders are not appeal-able 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