US v. Jackson

Filing 920061003

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-7026

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus EDDIE THOMAS JACKSON, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, Senior District Judge. (4:00-cr-00607-CWH; 4:02-cv-04170-CWH)

Submitted: September 26, 2006

Decided: October 3, 2006

Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eddie Thomas Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Eddie Thomas Jackson seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying his Rule 60(b) motion and his Rule 59 motion challenged the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The

orders are 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." § 2253(c)(2) (2000). that A prisoner satisfies would this 28 U.S.C. standard that by any

demonstrating

reasonable

jurists

find

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 Jackson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of We deny Jackson's motion to

appealability and dismiss the appeal. dismiss the charges. facts and legal before

We dispense with oral argument because the are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the

contentions the court

materials

would

decisional process.

DISMISSED

- 2 -