UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-7898
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CALVIN LAMONT JACKSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (7:06-cr-00712-GRA-1; 7:08-cv-70041-GRA)
Submitted: February 18, 2009 Decided: March 18, 2009
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Calvin Lamont Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Jean Howard,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Calvin Lamont Jackson seeks to appeal the district
court’s order adjudicating his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2006) motion,
in which the district court granted relief in part by directing
vacatur and reentry of Jackson’s criminal judgment so as to
permit him an opportunity to file a direct appeal, but dismissed
the remainder of the § 2255 claims on the ground that they were
without merit.
We initially note that despite the district court’s
order granting partial relief on Jackson’s § 2255 motion, his
criminal judgment was not subsequently vacated and reentered as
directed. While Jackson filed a notice of appeal with the
district court in which he sought to pursue his direct appeal,
there was no new criminal judgment from which he could timely
appeal, thereby preventing review of his conviction and sentence
by this court.
Furthermore, while the district court denied relief as
to the remainder of Jackson’s § 2255 claims and dismissed them
with prejudice, we note that those claims could otherwise be
raised in Jackson’s reinstated direct appeal. When a prisoner
has wrongly been denied his right to a direct appeal, he should
not be forced to raise all possible claims against his criminal
judgment in his first § 2255 motion and thereby “make the
substantive objections to his conviction and sentence that his
2
lawyer would have made for him on direct appeal.” See In re
Goddard, 170 F.3d 435, 437 (4th Cir. 1999). Therefore, we grant
Jackson’s motion for a certificate of appealability, modify the
district court’s dismissal of Jackson’s remaining claims to be
without prejudice, and affirm the dismissal as modified. 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.
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED
3