Court Opinion

ID: 4664979
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-03-04 20:00:37.43024+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:04.141804
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 18-7503

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

KEITH DEMOND INGRAM,

                    Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock
Hill. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (0:00-cr-00783-JFA-2; 0:16-cv-
02169-JFA)

Submitted: February 25, 2021                                      Decided: March 4, 2021

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, MOTZ, Circuit Judge, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Keith Demond Ingram, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Frank Daley, Jr., Assistant United States
Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Keith Demond Ingram seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on

his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and denying reconsideration. The orders are not appealable

unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)(B). 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). 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