UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7376
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MARK ALLEN JACKSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (CR-99-421)
Submitted: February 9, 2005 Decided: February 14, 2005
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mark Allen Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. William Neil Hammerstrom,
Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Mark Allen Jackson seeks to appeal the district court’s
order characterizing his motion filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b),
as an unauthorized and untimely motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255
(2000), and dismissing it. An appeal may not be taken from the
final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or
judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (2000); see also Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363,
367-69 (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 his constitutional claims are 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
(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 not made the requisite
showing. Moreover, to the extent Jackson’s notice of appeal is
construed as a motion to file a successive § 2255 motion, we deny
the motion without prejudice because Jackson has not made the
requisite showing. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (2000), United States v.
Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 995
(2003). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and
- 2 -
dismiss the appeal. We grant Jackson’s motion to seal. 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 -