Court Opinion

ID: 4222205
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-11-20 22:00:30.208468+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:47:50.532351
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 17-6817

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

RICKY MCKINLEY INGRAM,

                    Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:06-cr-00460-JAB-1; 1:12-cv-
00400-JAB-JEP)

Submitted: November 16, 2017                                Decided: November 20, 2017

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ricky McKinley Ingram, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Michael Hamilton, Angela Hewlett
Miller, Kyle David Pousson, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Ricky McKinley Ingram seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Ingram’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012)

motion. The order is 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 Ingram has not made

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal without prejudice to Ingram’s right to file in this court on the proper forms a motion

for authorization to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. 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