Keith LeVan v. Warden, Lee Correctional Institution

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6346 Doc: 18 Filed: 12/22/2025 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-6346 KEITH LEVAN, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN, LEE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (4:22-cv-03990-MGL) Submitted: November 26, 2025 Decided: December 22, 2025 Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Keith LeVan, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-6346 Doc: 18 Filed: 12/22/2025 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Keith LeVan seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissing LeVan’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. 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). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that LeVan has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny LeVan’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