US v. Billy Lunsford

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:10-cr-00182-1,2:13-cv-25090 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999786867].. [15-8010]

Appeal: 15-8010

Doc: 8

Filed: 04/01/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-8010

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BILLY E. LUNSFORD, a/k/a Peg-leg,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston.
Thomas E. Johnston,
District Judge. (2:10-cr-00182-1; 2:13-cv-25090)

Submitted:

March 29, 2016

Decided:

April 1, 2016

Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Billy E. Lunsford, Appellant Pro Se. Candace Haley Bunn, Assistant
United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia; William Bryan
King, II, Assistant United States Attorney, Cincinnati, Ohio, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-8010

Doc: 8

Filed: 04/01/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Billy E. Lunsford seeks to appeal the district court’s order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying
relief on his 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.”
(2012).

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 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
Lunsford 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

2

Appeal: 15-8010

Doc: 8

adequately

Filed: 04/01/2016

presented

in

the

Pg: 3 of 3

materials

before

this

court

and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

3