US v. Michael Jackson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to amend/correct [999555311-2] Originating case number: 3:93-cr-00125-JAG-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999645584]. Mailed to: Michael Jackson. [15-6259]

Appeal: 15-6259

Doc: 11

Filed: 08/24/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6259

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL R. JACKSON,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
John A. Gibney, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:93-cr-00125-JAG-1)

Submitted:

August 20, 2015

Decided: August 24, 2015

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael R. Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Eric Matthew Hurt,
Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6259

Doc: 11

Filed: 08/24/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Michael R. Jackson seeks to appeal the district court’s
order

denying

his

Fed.

R.

Civ.

P.

60(b)

motion

for

reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on
his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.
unless

a

circuit

appealability.

justice

or

The order is not appealable

judge

issues

a

certificate

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).

of

A certificate

of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right.”
(2012).

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.

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.
grant Jackson’s motion to file an amended brief.

We

We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
2

Appeal: 15-6259

Doc: 11

adequately

Filed: 08/24/2015

presented

in

the

Pg: 3 of 3

materials

before

this

court

and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3