US v. Nakia Keller

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for other relief [999596364-2], denying Motion for other relief [999616099-2]; denying Motion for abeyance (Local Rule 12(d)) [999620731-2]; denying Motion to amend/correct [999620739-2], denying Motion to amend/correct [999620742-2], denying Motion to amend/correct [999637375-2]; denying for certificate of appealability Originating case number: 5:10-cr-00015-GEC-RSB-2,5:13-cv-80612-GEC-RSB. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999659656]. Mailed to: Heaphy, Keller. [15-6516]

Download PDF
Appeal: 15-6516 Doc: 22 Filed: 09/15/2015 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6516 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. NAKIA HEATH KELLER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Glen E. Conrad, Chief District Judge. (5:10-cr-00015-GEC-RSB-2; 5:13-cv-80612-GECRSB) Submitted: August 31, 2015 Before KING and Circuit Judge. SHEDD, Circuit Decided: Judges, and September 15, 2015 HAMILTON, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nakia Heath Keller, Appellant Pro Se. Grayson A. Hoffman, Jeb Thomas Terrien, Assistant United States Attorneys, Harrisonburg, Virginia; Timothy J. Heaphy, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia; Stephen John Pfleger, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 15-6516 Doc: 22 Filed: 09/15/2015 Pg: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: Nakia Heath Keller seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend that decision. The justice judge or orders are issues a not appealable certificate U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). of unless a circuit appealability. 28 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 Cockrell, (2000); (2003). see Miller-El v. 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 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 Keller has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Keller’s motions to add evidence, to place the case in abeyance, and to amend his informal and 2 supplemental briefs, deny a Appeal: 15-6516 Doc: 22 certificate dispense of with contentions are Filed: 09/15/2015 Pg: 3 of 3 appealability, oral argument adequately and dismiss because presented in the the the appeal. facts We and legal materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?