Keith LeVan v. Warden, Lee Correctional Institution

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: December 22, 2025
• Docket: 24-6346
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

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UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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