DeAndre Jackson v. Commonwealth of Virginia

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed denying certificate of appealability. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999880071-2]. Originating case number: 2:16-cv-00055-AWA-DEM. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999949590]. Mailed to: DeAndre Jackson. [16-6774]

Appeal: 16-6774

Doc: 9

Filed: 10/18/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6774

DEANDRE L’OVERTURE JACKSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; HAROLD W. CLARKE,
Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District
Judge. (2:16-cv-00055-AWA-DEM)

Submitted:

October 13, 2016

Decided:

October 18, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

DeAndre L’overture Jackson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6774

Doc: 9

Filed: 10/18/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
DeAndre L’overture Jackson appeals the district court’s order
dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition
for failing to comply with a prior order directing him to pay a
required filing fee or to explain why he is unable to do so. *

The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues
a certificate of appealability.
(2012).

See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A)

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude

that Jackson has not made the requisite showing.
§ 2253(c)(2) (2012).

See 28 U.S.C.

Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in

forma pauperis, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss
the appeal.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

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

DISMISSED

*

We conclude that the district court’s order is final and
appealable because the defect identified by the district court
must be cured by something more than an amendment to the
allegations in the § 2254 petition. Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid
Soc’y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 623-24 (4th Cir. 2015).
2