US v. Pearlie Ingram, No. 12-7969 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7969 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. PEARLIE INGRAM, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (3:06-cr-00309-CMC-1; 3:12-cv-02713-CMC) Submitted: April 12, 2013 Decided: May 2, 2013 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Pearlie Lee Ingram, Appellant Pro Se. Dean A. Eichelberger, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Pearlie Ingram seeks to appeal the district court s order denying his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion as unauthorized and successive. a circuit justice appealability. or The order is not appealable unless judge issues a certificate 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). of A certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. (2006). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this jurists would reasonable standard find by that demonstrating the district that court s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). denies relief demonstrate on both procedural that the When the district court grounds, dispositive the prisoner procedural must 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 Ingram has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. Ingram s notice of appeal requests permission this court to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. order to obtain such authorization, 2 a prisoner must from In assert claims based previously on either: (1) discoverable by newly due discovered diligence, evidence, that would not be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense; or (2) a new rule of constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255(h). Ingram s criteria. claims do not satisfy either of these Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion. In addition, we deny Ingram leave to proceed in forma pauperis and his motions to supplement the brief and to exceed page limitations. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. DISMISSED 3

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.