US v. Ernest Kegler, Jr., No. 09-7544 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7544 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. ERNEST LELAND KEGLER, JR., a/k/a Boonie,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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Lynn West Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 Kegler, court s order accepting district Leland Jr., the seeks to appeal recommendation the 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 prisoner reasonable right. satisfies jurists constitutional 28 this would claims by U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) standard find the that district by any (2006). demonstrating assessment court is A that of debatable the 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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.