Christopher Heller v. Warden of Kershaw Correctional Institution

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6914 Doc: 17 Filed: 02/19/2026 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6914

CHRISTOPHER HELLER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN OF KERSHAW CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Joseph Dawson, III, District Judge. (5:23-cv-03456-JD)

Submitted: February 12, 2026 Decided: February 19, 2026

Before AGEE, WYNN, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher Reginald Geel, GEEL & GENTRY, LLC, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-6914 Doc: 17 Filed: 02/19/2026 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Christopher Heller seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Heller’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 Heller has not made

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 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