Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Jackson, 08-6054 (2008)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 08-6054 Visitors: 45
Filed: Mar. 31, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6054 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. EUGENE ERNST JACKSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District Judge. (1:01-cr-00464-WMN-1; 1:07-cv-02902-WMN) Submitted: March 25, 2008 Decided: March 31, 2008 Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eugene E
More
                              UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 08-6054



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.


EUGENE ERNST JACKSON,

                Defendant - Appellant.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.   William M. Nickerson, Senior District
Judge. (1:01-cr-00464-WMN-1; 1:07-cv-02902-WMN)


Submitted:   March 25, 2008                 Decided:   March 31, 2008


Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Eugene Ernst Jackson, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

          Eugene Ernst Jackson seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying as successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion.

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge

issues a certificate of appealability.        28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)

(2000).   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 prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating   that   reasonable   jurists   would   find   that   any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable.     Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322
, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 
529 U.S. 473
, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 
252 F.3d 676
, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).     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 the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.



                                                             DISMISSED




                               - 2 -

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer