Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06595/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06595-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6595

BILLY LEE LISENBY, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

LEROY CARTLEDGE, Warden, McCormick Correctional Institution,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Orangeburg. David C. Norton, District Judge. 

(5:14-cv-01546-DCN)

Submitted: August 20, 2015 Decided: August 25, 2015

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Billy Lee Lisenby, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Daniel John Crooks, 

III, SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Columbia, South 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6595 Doc: 6 Filed: 08/25/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Billy Lee Lisenby, Jr., seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate 

judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012)

petition, which the district court treated as a petition filed 

under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012). The order is not appealable 

unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of 

appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (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 petition 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 

Lisenby 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 

Appeal: 15-6595 Doc: 6 Filed: 08/25/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-6595 Doc: 6 Filed: 08/25/2015 Pg: 3 of 3