US v. Torben Jackson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:13-cr-00258-RJC-10,3:16-cv-00081-RJC. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000042502]. Mailed to: Torben Lamont Jackson; Paul Bradford Taylor. [16-7218]

Appeal: 16-7218

Doc: 11

Filed: 03/15/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7218

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TORBEN LAMONT JACKSON,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., District Judge. (3:13-cr-00258-RJC-10; 3:16-cv-00081-RJC)

Submitted:

January 23, 2017

Decided:

March 15, 2017

Before KEENAN, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Torben Lamont Jackson, Appellant Pro Se.
Steven R. Kaufman,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina,
Paul Bradford Taylor, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7218

Doc: 11

Filed: 03/15/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Torben Lamont Jackson seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.

The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues
a

certificate

(2012).

of

appealability.

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.”
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).
relief

on

the

demonstrating
district

merits,
that

court’s

debatable

or

a

When the district court denies

prisoner

reasonable

assessment

wrong.

Slack

satisfies

jurists

this

would

of

the

v.

McDaniel,

standard

find

U.S.

that

the

claims

constitutional
529

by

is

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

claim of the denial of a constitutional right.

a

debatable

Slack, 529 U.S.

at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Jackson has not made the requisite showing.
deny

a

certificate

We dispense

with

of

oral

appealability
argument

2

and

because

Accordingly, we

dismiss
the

the

facts

appeal.

and

legal

Appeal: 16-7218

Doc: 11

contentions

are

Filed: 03/15/2017

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3