Trevor Jackson v. A. D. ROBINSON, Warden

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6151
TREVOR JACKSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
A. D. ROBINSON, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 05-6425
TREVOR JACKSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
A. D. ROBINSON, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior,
District Judge. (CA-04-1322)
Submitted: August 25, 2005 Decided: August 31, 2005
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

-- 1 of 4 --

- 2 -
Before TRAXLER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 2 of 4 --

- 3 -
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated cases, Trevor Jackson, a state
prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order and order for
reconsideration accepting the recommendation of the magistrate
judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition on
the ground that it is untimely. These orders are not appealable
unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of
appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1); see Reid v. Angelone, 369
F.3d 363, 368-69, 374 n.7 (4th Cir. 2004). 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) (2000).
A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable
jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of his
constitutional claims is debatable and that any dispositive
procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or
wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003);
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d
676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the
record and conclude that Jackson has shown no error in the district
court’s procedural ruling. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeals. We dispense with oral
argument, because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

-- 3 of 4 --

- 4 -
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 4 of 4 --