US v. Yastrzemski Lipscombe

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

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UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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