Case Name: Charles Deland JACKSON, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, Buckingham Correctional Center, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-11-22
Citations: 455 F. App'x 299
Docket Number: No. 11-6639
Parties: Charles Deland JACKSON, Jr., Petitioner—Appellant, v. WARDEN, Buckingham Correctional Center, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before KING, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 455
Pages: 299–300

Head Matter:
Charles Deland JACKSON, Jr., Petitioner—Appellant, v. WARDEN, Buckingham Correctional Center, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 11-6639.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 17, 2011.
Decided: Nov. 22, 2011.
Charles Deland Jackson, Jr., Appellant pro se. Rosemary Virginia Bourne, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before KING, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Charles Deland Jackson, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). 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) (2006). 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 petition 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 deny all of Jackson's pending motions and 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.