US v. Lakeeshi Sim

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for transcript at government expense [999779693-2] Originating case number: 8:12-cr-00787-JMC-1,8:15-cv-02834-JMC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999913506]. Mailed to: L Sims. [16-6218]

Appeal: 16-6218

Doc: 9

Filed: 08/19/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED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

Before WYNN and
Circuit Judge.

DIAZ,

Circuit

Decided:

Judges,

and

August 19, 2016

HAMILTON,

Senior

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6218

Doc: 9

Filed: 08/19/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

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.
A

certificate

of

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).

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
assessment
wrong.”

jurists
of

Slack

the

would

find

that

constitutional

v.

McDaniel,

529

the

claims
U.S.

district
[is]

473,

court’s

debatable

484

(2000);

Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).

or
see

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

2

because

the

facts

and

legal

Appeal: 16-6218

Doc: 9

contentions

Filed: 08/19/2016

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3