US v. Ronald Jackson, No. 08-6724 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6724 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. RONALD SAMUEL JACKSON, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (5:03-cr-30093-JCT-4; 7:07-cv-00191-JCT-JGW) Submitted: May 6, 2009 Decided: May 21, 2009 Before GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronald Samuel Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Jean Barrett Hudson, Assistant United States Attorney, Bruce A. Pagel, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ronald Samuel Jackson seeks to appeal the district court s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2008) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional prisoner right. satisfies reasonable jurists constitutional 28 this by § 2253(c)(2) standard would claims U.S.C. find the that district by any (2006). demonstrating assessment court is A that of debatable the or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. court is likewise debatable. 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. motion for appointment of Accordingly, we deny Jackson s counsel, appealability and dismiss the appeal. deny a certificate of 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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.