US v. Lewis Jackson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [999569643-2]. Originating case number: 5:07-cr-00110-FL-1,5:12-cv-00205-FL. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999625258].. [15-6066]

Appeal: 15-6066

Doc: 16

Filed: 07/22/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6066

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LEWIS CARNELL JACKSON,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (5:07-cr-00110-FL-1; 5:12-cv-00205-FL)

Submitted:

July 20, 2015

Decided:

July 22, 2015

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Lee Davis, III, Lumberton, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Jennifer P. May-Parker, Ethan A. Ontjes, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6066

Doc: 16

Filed: 07/22/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Lewis Carnell Jackson seeks to appeal the district court’s
December 2014 order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate
judge and denying relief on his claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012)
that counsel rendered ineffective assistance by not communicating
a plea agreement to him prior to trial.
This order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
issues a certificate of appealability.
(2012).

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B)

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).

28

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 (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

constitutional right.

a

debatable

claim

of

the

denial

of

a

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

his motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
2

Appeal: 15-6066

Doc: 16

Filed: 07/22/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3