US v. Linda Newcomb
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed denying certificate of appealability. Originating case number: 6:14-cr-00009-NKM-RSB-1, 6:16-cv-81150-NKM-RSB. Copies to all parties and the district court. . Mailed to: Linda Newcomb. [17-6391]
Pg: 1 of 2
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
LINDA SUE NEWCOMB,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Lynchburg. Norman K. Moon, Senior District Judge. (6:14-cr-00009-NKM-RSB-1;
Submitted: August 18, 2017
Decided: September 15, 2017
Before SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David B. Hargett, HARGETT LAW, PLC, Glen Allen, Virginia, for Appellant. Anthony
P. Giorno, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 2
Linda Sue Newcomb 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.
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.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). 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 Newcomb 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 adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
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?