Clifford Jackson v. Dayena Corcoran

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [999056893-2] Originating case number: 8:13-cv-00213-PJM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999097969]. Mailed to: Clifford Jackson. [13-6312]

Appeal: 13-6312

Doc: 11

Filed: 04/30/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6312

CLIFFORD ANTHONY JACKSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
DAYENA CORCORAN, Warden;
General of Maryland,

DOUGLAS

F.

GANSLER,

Attorney

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Peter J. Messitte, Senior District
Judge. (8:13-cv-00213-PJM)

Submitted:

April 25, 2013

Before AGEE and
Circuit Judge.

WYNN,

Circuit

Decided: April 30, 2013

Judges,

and

HAMILTON,

Senior

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Clifford Anthony Jackson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-6312

Doc: 11

Filed: 04/30/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Clifford Anthony Jackson seeks to appeal the district
court’s

order

petition.

denying

relief

on

his

28

U.S.C.

(2006)

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice

or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006).
issue

§ 2254

absent

“a

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

See 28 U.S.C.

showing

of

the

denial

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006).

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 petition 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 Jackson’s motion for a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeal.
facts

and

legal

We dispense with oral argument because the

contentions

are

2

adequately

presented

in

the

Appeal: 13-6312

Doc: 11

materials

before

Filed: 04/30/2013

this

court

Pg: 3 of 3

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process.

DISMISSED

3