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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

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UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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