US v. Eugene Jackson, No. 14-7004 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7004 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. EUGENE ERNST JACKSON, Defendant -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) Submitted: November 18, 2014 Decided: December 2, 2014 Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eugene Ernst Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Clinton Jacob Fuchs, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Eugene Ernst § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). issue absent “a of U.S.C. district § 2255 appealability. 28 (2012) U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right.” 28 the The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or certificate his appeal motion. a on to order issues relief seeks court’s judge denying Jackson showing of the denial 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). of a 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 Cockrell, (2000); (2003). see Miller-El v. 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 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 2 because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3