Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 10-22-2021

Case Style:

United States of America v. Sylvester Jackson

Case Number: 19-7297

Judge: Before WYNN, DIAZ, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Court: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Plaintiff's Attorney: Rachel Barish Swartz, Special Assistant
United States Attorney

Defendant's Attorney:


Richmond, Virginia - Criminal defense Lawyer Directory


Description:

Richmond, Virginia - Criminal defense lawyer represented defendant with o appealing the district court’s order denying relief.



Sylvester Monroe Jackson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief
on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2018) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice
or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2018). 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) (2018). 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.

Outcome: 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. 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.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments:



Find a Lawyer

Subject:
City:
State:
 

Find a Case

Subject:
County:
State: