United States of America v. SHIRLEY INGRAM, JR., a/k/a Raheem

UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

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