Court Opinion

ID: 625023
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2012-03-09 20:07:38+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:51:09.643592
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 11-6398

KEVIN D. INGRAM,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

BUCKINGHAM CORRECTIONAL CENTER,

                Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.   James R. Spencer, Chief
District Judge. (3:09-cv-00831-JRS)

Submitted:   January 17, 2012              Decided:   March 9, 2012

Before KING, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kevin D. Ingram, Appellant Pro Se.     Josephine Frances Whalen,
Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

               Kevin D. Ingram seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on 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 Ingram has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly,       we     deny    Ingram’s       motion   for    a     certificate      of

appealability and dismiss the appeal.                     We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

                                             2
presented in the materials before the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

                                                     DISMISSED

                                  3