Eugene Jackson v. J. R. Caraway

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:11-cv-01876-WMN Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999208657]. Mailed to: Eugene Ernst Jackson. [13-6764]

Appeal: 13-6764

Doc: 7

Filed: 10/04/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6764

EUGENE JACKSON,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
J. R. CARAWAY, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
William M. Nickerson, Senior District
Judge. (1:11-cv-01876-WMN)

Submitted:

September 17, 2013

Decided:

October 4, 2013

Before DUNCAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eugene Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Joshua L. Kaul, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-6764

Doc: 7

Filed: 10/04/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Eugene

Ernst

Jackson

seeks

to

appeal:

the

district

court’s orders: treating his motion for reconsideration as a
successive

28

U.S.C.A.

dismissing

it

on

reconsideration.
unless

a

that

(West

basis;

Supp.

2013)

and

motion

and

denying

his

motion

for

The district court’s orders are not appealable

circuit

appealability.

§ 2255

justice

or

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).

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)

When the district court denies relief on the merits, a

prisoner

satisfies

this

jurists

would

reasonable

standard
find

by

that

demonstrating

the

district

that

court’s

assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong.
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v.
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).
denies

relief

demonstrate

both

on

procedural

that

the

When the district court

grounds,

dispositive

the

prisoner

procedural

ruling

must
is

debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the
denial of a constitutional right.
We

have

independently

reviewed

the

Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85.
record

Jackson has not made the requisite showing.

and

conclude

Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

2

that

Appeal: 13-6764

Doc: 7

Filed: 10/04/2013

Pg: 3 of 3

Additionally, we construe Jackson’s notice of appeal
and

informal

brief

as

an

successive § 2255 motion.

application

file

claims

a

successive

based

previously

on

§ 2255

either:

discoverable

file

a

second

or

See United States v. Winestock, 340

F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003).
to

to

In order to obtain authorization
motion,

(1)
by

newly
due

a

prisoner

discovered

diligence,

must

assert

evidence,

that

would

not
be

sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that,
but

for

constitutional

error,

no

reasonable

factfinder

would

have found the movant guilty of the offense; or (2) a new rule
of constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive
by the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review.
§ 2255(h) (West Supp. 2013).
either of these criteria.

28 U.S.C.

Jackson’s claims do not satisfy

Therefore, 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