Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Charles Jackson, Jr. v. Warden, Buckingham Correctional, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    18 views3 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding an appeal filed by Charles Deland Jackson, Jr. of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. The appeals court independently reviewed the record and determined that Jackson did not make a substantial showing that he was denied a constitutional right. As such, the court denied Jackson's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed his appeal. All of Jackson's pending motions were also denied, and the court dispensed with oral argument.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2011-11-22 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 11-6639

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding an appeal filed by Charles Deland Jackson, Jr. of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. The appeals court independently reviewed the record and determined that Jackson did not make a substantial showing that he was denied a constitutional right. As such, the court denied Jackson's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed his appeal. All of Jackson's pending motions were also denied, and the court dispensed with oral argument.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    18 views3 pages

    Charles Jackson, Jr. v. Warden, Buckingham Correctional, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding an appeal filed by Charles Deland Jackson, Jr. of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. The appeals court independently reviewed the record and determined that Jackson did not make a substantial showing that he was denied a constitutional right. As such, the court denied Jackson's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed his appeal. All of Jackson's pending motions were also denied, and the court dispensed with oral argument.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 11-6639

    CHARLES DELAND JACKSON, JR.,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    WARDEN, BUCKINGHAM CORRECTIONAL CENTER,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
    Liam OGrady, District
    Judge. (1:09-cv-01157-JCC-IDD)

    Submitted:

    November 17, 2011

    Decided:

    November 22, 2011

    Before KING, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Charles Deland Jackson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.


    Rosemary
    Virginia Bourne, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA,
    Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Charles

    Deland

    Jackson,

    Jr.,

    seeks

    to

    appeal

    the

    district courts order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. 2254


    (2006) petition.

    The order is not appealable unless a circuit

    justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.


    U.S.C. 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006).

    See 28

    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) (2006).

    When the

    district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies


    this

    standard

    by

    demonstrating

    that

    reasonable

    jurists

    would

    find that the district courts assessment of the constitutional


    claims is debatable or wrong.

    Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

    484

    Cockrell,

    (2000);

    (2003).

    see

    Miller-El

    v.

    537

    U.S.

    322,

    336-38

    When the district court denies relief on procedural

    grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive


    procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a
    debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right.
    529 U.S. at 484-85.

    Slack,

    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.
    dispense

    with

    We deny all of Jacksons pending motions and we


    oral

    argument

    because

    the

    facts

    and

    legal

    contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the


    court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED

    You might also like