United States v. Lakeeshi Sims

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6218
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
LAKEESHI SIMS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. J. Michelle Childs, District
Judge. (8:12-cr-00787-JMC-1; 8:15-cv-02834-JMC)
Submitted: August 5, 2016 Decided: August 19, 2016
Before WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lakeeshi Sims, Appellant Pro Se. Carrie Fisher Sherard,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Lakeeshi Sims seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order
is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
Id. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the
merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that
“reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s
assessment of the constitutional claims [is] debatable or
wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the
district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner
must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is
debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the
denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Sims has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a
certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. The motion
for preparation of a transcript at government expense is denied.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3