Eugene Jackson v. J. R. CARAWAY, Warden

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-6764
EUGENE JACKSON,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
J. R. CARAWAY, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District
Judge. (1:11-cv-01876-WMN)
Submitted: September 17, 2013 Decided: October 4, 2013
Before DUNCAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eugene Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Joshua L. Kaul, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Eugene Ernst Jackson seeks to appeal: the district
court’s orders: treating his motion for reconsideration as a
successive 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2013) motion and
dismissing it on that basis; and denying his motion for
reconsideration. The district court’s orders are not appealable
unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of
appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (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 motion 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 a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Additionally, we construe Jackson’s notice of appeal
and informal brief as an application to file a second or
successive § 2255 motion. See United States v. Winestock, 340
F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization
to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert
claims based on either: (1) newly discovered evidence, not
previously discoverable by due diligence, that would be
sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that,
but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would
have found the movant guilty of the offense; or (2) a new rule
of constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive
by the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255(h) (West Supp. 2013). Jackson’s claims do not satisfy
either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to
file a successive § 2255 motion.
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 of 3 --