United States v. Sylvester Jackson
United States v. Sylvester Jackson
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-7297
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SYLVESTER MONROE JACKSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge. (7:15-cr-00094-GEC-1; 7:18-cv-81335-GEC- PMS)
Submitted: January 23, 2020 Decided: January 28, 2020
Before WYNN, DIAZ, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sylvester Monroe Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Rachel Barish Swartz, Special Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Sylvester Monroe Jackson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief
on his
28 U.S.C. § 2255(2018) 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) (2018). 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) (2018). 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
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished