USCA4 Appeal: 23-6262 Doc: 7 Filed: 12/27/2023 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6262

TRE’VAUGHN JACKSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

BRIAN KENDALL, Warden, Lieber Correctional Institution,

Respondent - Appellee,

and

BRYAN STIRLING, Commissioner, South Carolina Department of Corrections,

Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (5:22-cv-00402-MGL)

Submitted: November 21, 2023 Decided: December 27, 2023

Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Elizabeth Anne Franklin-Best, ELIZABETH FRANKLIN-BEST, P.C., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-6262 Doc: 7 Filed: 12/27/2023 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Tre’Vaughn Jackson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge

issues a certificate of appealability. See

(c)(1)(A). A certificate of

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right.”

(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v.

Davis,

(2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is

debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional

right. Gonzalez v. Thaler,

(2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000)).

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