Court Opinion

ID: 9390997
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-28 21:01:27.097527+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:38.788241
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7383      Doc: 7        Filed: 04/27/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 21-7383

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        CHAD LAQUANN JACKSON,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
        Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:16-cr-00333-WO-1; 1:18-cv-
        00220-WO-JLW)

        Submitted: April 25, 2023                                           Decided: April 27, 2023

        Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, THACKER, Circuit Judge, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Chad Laquann Jackson, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-7383         Doc: 7      Filed: 04/27/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Chad Laquann Jackson seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the

        recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Jackson’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255

        motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of

        appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this

        standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment

        of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17

        (2017). 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S.

        134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

               Limiting our review of the record to the issues raised in Jackson’s informal brief,

        see 4th Cir. R. 34(b); see also Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The

        informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited

        to issues preserved in that brief.”), we conclude that Jackson has not made the requisite

        showing. Accordingly, we deny Jackson’s motion for 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

                                                      2