UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-6771
CLIFFORD ANTHONY JACKSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
DAYENA CORCORAN, Warden; DOUGLAS F. GANSLER, Attorney
General of Maryland,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District
Judge. (8:13-cv-00213-PJM)
Submitted: August 29, 2013 Decided: September 4, 2013
Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Clifford Anthony Jackson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Clifford Anthony Jackson seeks to appeal the district
court’s paperless order denying his motion for a certificate of
appealability with respect to his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)
petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice
or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (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 petition 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. We have
previously rejected a motion for a certificate of appealability
with respect to the denial of Jackson’s habeas petition, see
Jackson v. Corcoran, No. 13-6312 (Apr. 30, 2013) (unpublished),
2
and that determination is now the law of the case. See United
States v. Aramony, 166 F.3d 655, 661 (4th Cir. 1999) (discussing
doctrine).
Accordingly, we deny Jackson’s motion for a
certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We further
deny as moot Jackson’s motion to recuse Judges Motz, Davis, and
Wynn. 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