Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06516/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06516-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Nakia Heath Keller
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6516

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

NAKIA HEATH KELLER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Glen E. Conrad, Chief 

District Judge. (5:10-cr-00015-GEC-RSB-2; 5:13-cv-80612-GECRSB)

Submitted: August 31, 2015 Decided: September 15, 2015

Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nakia Heath Keller, Appellant Pro Se. Grayson A. Hoffman, Jeb 

Thomas Terrien, Assistant United States Attorneys, Harrisonburg, 

Virginia; Timothy J. Heaphy, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES 

ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia; Stephen John Pfleger, OFFICE OF THE 

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6516 Doc: 22 Filed: 09/15/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Nakia Heath Keller seeks to appeal the district court’s 

orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and 

denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend that 

decision. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit 

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) (2012). 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 motion 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 

Keller has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

Keller’s motions to add evidence, to place the case in abeyance, 

and to amend his informal and supplemental briefs, deny a 

Appeal: 15-6516 Doc: 22 Filed: 09/15/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. 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

Appeal: 15-6516 Doc: 22 Filed: 09/15/2015 Pg: 3 of 3