US v. Yastrzemski Lipscombe


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. A certificate of appealability is denied. Originating case number: 8:12-cr-00024-HMH-5, 8:16-cv-00085-HMH. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency [999955468]. Mailed to: Yastrzemski Lipscombe. [16-6302]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-6302 Doc: 7 Filed: 10/26/2016 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6302 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. YASTRZEMSKI LIPSCOMBE, a/k/a O, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (8:12-cr-00024-HMH-5; 8:16-cv-00085-HMH) Submitted: October 18, 2016 Before DUNCAN Circuit Judge. and AGEE, Decided: Circuit Judges, and October 26, 2016 DAVIS, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Yastrzemski Lipscombe, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Burke Moorman, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina; Stanley D. Ragsdale, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 16-6302 Doc: 7 Filed: 10/26/2016 Pg: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: Yastrzemski Lipscombe seeks to appeal the district court’s order 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 (2012). of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) 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) (2012). relief on the demonstrating district merits, that court’s debatable or a When the district court denies prisoner reasonable assessment wrong. satisfies jurists would of the v. McDaniel, Slack this standard find U.S. that the claims constitutional 529 by is 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 claim of the denial of a constitutional right. a debatable Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Lipscombe has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. dispense with oral argument because 2 the facts and We legal Appeal: 16-6302 Doc: 7 contentions Filed: 10/26/2016 are adequately Pg: 3 of 3 presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?