US v. Maurice Jackson, No. 12-8141 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-8141 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. MAURICE EDWARD JACKSON, a/k/a Moe, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. James P. Jones, District Judge. (5:93-cr-30025-JPJ-RSB-4; 5:12-cv-80538-JPJ-RSB) Submitted: April 23, 2013 Decided: May 13, 2013 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Maurice Edward Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Grayson A. Hoffman, Assistant United States Attorney, Harrisonburg, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Maurice Edward Jackson seeks to appeal the district court s order treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c) motion as a successive 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 dismissing it on that basis. a circuit justice appealability. or (West Supp. 2012) motion, and The order is not appealable unless judge issues a certificate 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). of A certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this reasonable jurists would assessment of constitutional wrong. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) the standard find by that demonstrating the claims district is that court s debatable or 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. Additionally, in his informal brief, Jackson requests leave to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. 2 In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on either: (1) newly discovered evidence that . . . would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense; or (2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255(h) (West Supp. 2012). Jackson s claims do not Therefore, satisfy either of these criteria. we deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. DISMISSED 3
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.
