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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed denying certificate of appealability.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. [1000156283]. Mailed to: Linda Newcomb. [17-6391]

Download PDF
Appeal: 17-6391 Doc: 14 Filed: 09/15/2017 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6391 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LINDA SUE NEWCOMB, Defendant - Appellant.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; 6:16-cv-81150-NKM-RSB) 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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 17-6391 Doc: 14 Filed: 09/15/2017 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: 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. DISMISSED 2

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?