US v. Larry Lingenfelter
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:10-cr-00153-RAJ-TEM-1, 2:14-cv-00575-RAJ Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. . Mailed to: L. Lingenfelter. [16-7339]
Pg: 1 of 4
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
LARRY EUGENE LINGENFELTER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (2:10-cr-00153-RAJ-TEM-1; 2:14-cv-00575-RAJ)
March 28, 2017
April 20, 2017
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jeremy Brian Gordon, JEREMY GORDON, PLLC, Mansfield, Texas, for
Stephen Westley Haynie, Assistant United States
Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 4
Lingenfelter may not appeal from the dismissal of his
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.”
§ 2253(c)(2) (2012).
Where the district court denies relief on
the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v.
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).
Where, as here, the
district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner
must show that jurists of reason would find debatable whether the
motion states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional
right, and whether the district court’s procedural ruling was
Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85.
United States v. Lingenfelter, 473 F. App’x 303 (4th Cir. 2012)
(unpublished), cert. denied 134 S. Ct. 534 (2013).
Court denied Lingenfelter’s petition for a writ of certiorari on
November 4, 2013, and Lingenfelter timely filed the instant motion
on October 31, 2014.
Pg: 3 of 4
See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(1).
find that jurists of reason would find debatable the district
court’s dismissal of Lingenfelter’s motion on timeliness grounds.
ineffective assistance of counsel.
First, Lingenfelter alleged
that his trial counsel failed to inform him of a favorable plea
offer that the Government had memorialized in an email to his
“[A]s a general rule, defense counsel has the duty to
communicate formal offers from the prosecution to accept a plea on
Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. 133, 145 (2012).
contended that his counsel did not perform up to this standard, we
conclude that jurists of reason would find debatable whether he
stated a violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
Lingenfelter also challenged his counsel’s decision not to
introduce certain evidence at trial.
However, in his counseled
appellate brief, Lingenfelter merely notes that this claim was
made below without offering any argument as to its debatability.
Thus, he has waived appellate review of this claim. See Jackson v.
Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014).
Accordingly, we grant a certificate of appealability on the
assistance of counsel through his counsel’s alleged failure to
Pg: 4 of 4
appealability on the assertion of ineffective assistance based on
counsel’s decision not to introduce certain evidence at trial.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
VACATED AND REMANDED
By this disposition, we express no view on the merits of
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?