govinfo:USCOURTS-mdd-8_15-cr-00392-2

1 
 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND 
Southern Division 
 
 
ERNEST INGRAM, 
 * 
 
 P e t i t i o n e r , * 
v. Civil Case No.: GJH-17-3064 
 * Criminal Case No.: GJH-15-392 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
 * 
Respondent. 
 * 
 
* * * * * * * * * * * * * 
 
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 
 
Pro Se Petitioner Ernest Ingram was sentenced to 87 months of imprisonment after he 
pleaded guilty to two counts of interference with interstate commerce by robbery. ECF Nos. 
66,87. On April 17, 2020, the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion under 28 § U.S.C. 2255 to Vacate, 
Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody. ECF No. 147. In so doing, 
however, the Court neglected to address the issue of whether a Certificate of Appealability was 
appropriate. 
Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, the 
court is required to issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse 
to the applicant. A certificate of appealability is a “jurisdictional prerequisite” to an appeal from 
the court’s earlier order. United States v. Hadden, 475 F.3d 652, 659 (4th Cir. 2007). A 
certificate of appealability may issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the 
denial of constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Where the court denies petitioner’s 
motion on its merits, a petitioner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists 
would find the court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Slack v. 

2 
 
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see also Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336–38 
(2003). 
IT IS HERBEY ORDERED THAT because reasonable jurists would not find Petitioner’s 
claim debatable, no certificate appealability will issue.1 
 
Date: September 28, 2020 __/s/________________________ 
GEORGE J. HAZEL 
United States District Judge 
 
 
1 Ingram may still request a certificate of appealability from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth 
Circuit. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1); Lyons v. Lee, 316 F.3d 528, 532 (4th Cir. 2003). 

Passage view · GavelSight