Clifford Jackson v. Dayena Corcoran , 539 F. App'x 152 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                                UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 13-6771
    CLIFFORD ANTHONY JACKSON,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    DAYENA CORCORAN, Warden;        DOUGLAS      F.   GANSLER,   Attorney
    General of Maryland,
    Respondents - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Greenbelt.     Peter J. Messitte, Senior District
    Judge. (8:13-cv-00213-PJM)
    Submitted:   August 29, 2013                 Decided:   September 4, 2013
    Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Clifford Anthony Jackson, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Clifford Anthony Jackson seeks to appeal the district
    court’s paperless order denying his motion for a certificate of
    appealability       with    respect      to       his    
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
        (2006)
    petition.     The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice
    or judge issues a certificate of appealability.                           See 
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(1)(A) (2006).           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 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 petition 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.        We    have
    previously rejected a motion for a certificate of appealability
    with respect to the denial of Jackson’s habeas petition, see
    Jackson v. Corcoran, No. 13-6312 (Apr. 30, 2013) (unpublished),
    2
    and that determination is now the law of the case.                    See United
    States v. Aramony, 
    166 F.3d 655
    , 661 (4th Cir. 1999) (discussing
    doctrine).
    Accordingly,      we   deny     Jackson’s         motion     for   a
    certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.                  We further
    deny as moot Jackson’s motion to recuse Judges Motz, Davis, and
    Wynn.      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
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-6771

Citation Numbers: 539 F. App'x 152

Judges: Agee, Duncan, Keenan, Per Curiam

Filed Date: 9/4/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023