US v. Nakia Keller, No. 15-6516 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6516 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. NAKIA HEATH KELLER, Defendant - Appellant.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 SHEDD, Circuit Decided: Judges, and September 15, 2015 HAMILTON, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 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 certificate dispense of with contentions are 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
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.
