U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 2004

United States v. Jackson

United States v. Jackson
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided February 5, 2004
86 F. App'x 604

United States v. Jackson

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 -

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.