Court Opinion

ID: 2737881
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-09-29 19:01:20.117035+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:03:50.945245
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 14-6512

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

CECIL EDWARD JACKSON,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:90-cr-00085-MOC-1; 3:13-cv-00390-MOC)

Submitted:   September 25, 2014          Decided:   September 29, 2014

Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cecil Edward Jackson, Appellant Pro Se.       Amy Elizabeth Ray,
Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina;
Melissa   Louise  Rikard,   Assistant  United   States  Attorney,
Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

              Cecil    Edward       Jackson        seeks    to     appeal       the    district

court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012)

motion and a subsequent motion for reconsideration.                                  The orders

are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability.               28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).

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) (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

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (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.

              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

                                               2
contentions   are   adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                               DISMISSED

                                   3