United States of America v. Anthony Jackson, a/k/a Loc

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-7279
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANTHONY JACKSON, a/k/a Loc,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Wilmington. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (7:22-cr-00039-BO-1; 7:23-cv-01233-
BO)
Submitted: April 18, 2024 Decided: April 22, 2024
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anthony Jackson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Anthony Jackson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28
U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues
a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies
this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s
assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S.
100, 115-17 (2017). 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. Gonzalez v.
Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Jackson has not made
the requisite showing. The district court correctly concluded that Jackson’s claim that
counsel was ineffective for advising him that he could plead guilty despite the appellate
waiver in the plea was belied by the record as Jackson was advised of the waiver at the
Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing and agreed that he understood its terms. Therefore, Jackson
failed to demonstrate that counsel rendered ineffective assistance.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

-- 2 of 3 --

3
presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --