Reginald Jackson v. Warden , 466 F. App'x 200 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 11-7301
    REGINALD A. JACKSON,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    WARDEN, FCI Petersburg Low; U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION,
    Respondents - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria.   Liam O’Grady, District
    Judge. (1:10-cv-01126-LO-JFA)
    Submitted:   February 16, 2012            Decided:   February 22, 2012
    Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Reginald A. Jackson, Appellant Pro Se.  Kevin J. Mikolashek,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for
    Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Reginald A. Jackson, a District of Columbia prisoner
    housed in federal custody, seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order denying relief on his 
    28 U.S.C.A. § 2241
     (West 2006 &
    Supp. 2011) petition.            The order is not appealable unless a
    circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
    
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(1)(A)      (2006);     see   Madley    v.    U.S.     Parole
    Comm’n, 
    278 F.3d 1306
    , 1309 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (“We conclude that
    a court of the District [of Columbia] is a state court for the
    purpose of [§ 2253(c)].”).           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.
    Accordingly, we deny Jackson’s motions to remand and for release
    2
    pending appeal, 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   the   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional
    process.
    DISMISSED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-7301

Citation Numbers: 466 F. App'x 200

Judges: Keenan, Per Curiam, Shedd, Wynn

Filed Date: 2/22/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/5/2023