Eric Ingram v. Brett Bullis

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6149 Doc: 13 Filed: 01/28/2026 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 25-6149 ERIC ANTRON INGRAM, Petitioner - Appellant, v. BRET BULLIS, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, Chief District Judge. (1:23-cv-00958-CCE-JEP) Submitted: January 22, 2026 Decided: January 28, 2026 Before AGEE, RICHARDSON, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eric Antron Ingram, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-6149 Doc: 13 Filed: 01/28/2026 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Eric Antron Ingram seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Ingram’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Ingram has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Ingram’s motion for 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2