Court Opinion

ID: 1012389
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 20:44:30.789208+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:18.256338
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 03-7353

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

DEMOND ANDRE JACKSON,

                                              Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Huntington.  Robert C. Chambers,
District Judge. (CR-99-15-3; CA-01-31-3)

Submitted: January 29, 2004                 Decided: February   5, 2004

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeffrey M. Brandt, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellant. Michael Lee
Keller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West
Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

           Demond Jackson seeks to appeal the district court’s order

dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion.       Jackson cannot

appeal this order unless a circuit judge or justice issues a

certificate of appealability, and 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) (2000).   A habeas

appellant meets this standard by demonstrating that reasonable

jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and

that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are

also debatable or wrong.    See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322,

326 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v.

Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).       We have independently

reviewed the record and conclude 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 the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                            DISMISSED

                                - 2 -