United States v. Kegler

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
United States v. Kegler, 357 F. App'x 526 (4th Cir. 2009)

United States v. Kegler

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7544

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

ERNEST LELAND KEGLER, JR., a/k/a Boonie,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph R. Goodwin, Chief District Judge. (2:04-cr-00012-1; 2:06-cv-00339)

Submitted: December 15, 2009 Decided: December 21, 2009

Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ernest Leland Kegler, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Monica Lynn Dillon, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Ernest Leland Kegler, Jr., seeks to appeal the

district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the

magistrate judge and denying relief on his

28 U.S.C.A. § 2255

(West Supp. 2009) motion. The order is not appealable unless a

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.

28 U.S.C. § 2253

(c)(1) (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). A

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that

reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the

constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or

wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district

court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38

(2003); Slack v. McDaniel,

529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000);

Rose v. Lee,

252 F.3d 676, 683-84

(4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Kegler has

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Kegler’s

motion to appoint counsel, 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 the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED

2

Reference

Status
Unpublished