Court Opinion

ID: 4568140
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2020-09-22 22:32:24.675436+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:17.364294
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                       No. 19-7304

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                     Plaintiff - Appellee,

              v.

SHIRLEY INGRAM, JR., a/k/a Raheem,

                     Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:10-cr-00069-FDW-1; 3:15-cv-00553-
FDW)

Submitted: July 17, 2020                                          Decided: July 24, 2020

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, AGEE and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Shirley Ingram, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Shirley Ingram, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his

superseding amended 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2018) 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)

(2018). 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) (2018). 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, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (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 Ingram has not made

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a 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

                                              2