US v. Ernest Kegler, Jr.

Filing 920091221

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Dillon, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, Virginia, for Appellee.

Lynn West

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Ernest district court's Leland order Kegler, accepting Jr., the seeks to appeal of the the

recommendation

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 prisoner reasonable right." this would by 28 U.S.C. standard find the that § 2253(c)(2) by any (2006). A that the or

satisfies jurists

demonstrating assessment is of

constitutional

claims

district

court

debatable

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