Jackson v. United States
- Loretta Preska
- 1:16-cv-04792
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Jackson v. United States, Judge Preska denied Raymond Jackson’s request for permission to appeal the rejection of his post-conviction motion.
Raymond Jackson, whose request for a certificate of appealability was denied; the United States, which opposed the request.
What happened
Jackson v. United States concerns Raymond Jackson’s request for permission to appeal an earlier order denying his motion challenging his federal conviction and sentence.
Through counsel, Jackson raised two questions about whether offenses involved in his case qualified as crimes of violence under federal law. The government opposed his request.
Judge Preska denied the request because Jackson did not address the court’s separate finding that his challenge was procedurally barred because he had not shown actual prejudice. The clerk was directed to close the motion.
The detailed version
- Jackson v. United States · No. 1:16-cv-04792
- Loretta Preska
- June 10, 2022
Background
Raymond Jackson moved for a certificate of appealability, which is court permission to appeal the denial of a federal post-conviction motion. He sought to appeal the court’s March 31, 2022, order denying his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The Government opposed the request.
Issues Raised
Jackson, through counsel, asked for a certificate on two issues that had been alternative grounds for denying his § 2255 motion:
1. Whether the record showed that, on Count 77, he pleaded guilty only to conspiring to commit murder in aid of a racketeering enterprise, and whether that offense was therefore not a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)’s elements clause. 2. Whether murder under New York law was categorically a crime of violence when it could allegedly be committed recklessly through depraved indifference or through an omission.
Court’s Analysis
A certificate of appealability may issue only when the petitioner makes a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. When a petition was denied on a procedural ground, the petitioner must address both the underlying constitutional claim and whether the procedural ruling is debatable.
The court had denied Jackson’s § 2255 motion for failure to overcome a procedural default by establishing actual prejudice. The court found that Jackson did not address that procedural ruling in his certificate request. Because resolving the two issues he identified would not change the outcome of the § 2255 motion, the court concluded that he had not made the required substantial showing.
Disposition
Judge Preska denied Jackson’s motion for a certificate of appealability. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the open motion. The opinion does not state that the court granted permission to appeal.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.