Court Opinion

ID: 3208034
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-05-31 19:01:00.884619+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:39:25.640031
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 15-8020

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

VERNELIUS JACKSON, a/k/a Drama, a/k/a Jackson Vernelius,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg.    Glen E. Conrad, Chief
District Judge. (5:08-cr-00018-GEC-2; 5:15-cv-80873-GEC-RSB)

Submitted:   May 26, 2016                  Decided:   May 31, 2016

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and FLOYD, Circuit
Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Vernelius Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Jeb Thomas Terrien, Assistant
United States Attorney, Harrisonburg, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Vernelius Jackson seeks to appeal the district court’s order

dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.               The

order is 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 contentions are

adequately    presented   in   the   materials   before   this   court   and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                 DISMISSED

                                      2