Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-08010/USCOURTS-ca4-15-08010-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Billy E. Lunsford
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-8010

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

BILLY E. LUNSFORD, a/k/a Peg-leg,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern 

District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Thomas E. Johnston, 

District Judge. (2:10-cr-00182-1; 2:13-cv-25090)

Submitted: March 29, 2016 Decided: April 1, 2016

Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Billy E. Lunsford, Appellant Pro Se. Candace Haley Bunn, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia; William Bryan 

King, II, Assistant United States Attorney, Cincinnati, Ohio, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-8010 Doc: 8 Filed: 04/01/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Billy E. Lunsford seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 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 

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 

Lunsford 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 

Appeal: 15-8010 Doc: 8 Filed: 04/01/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-8010 Doc: 8 Filed: 04/01/2016 Pg: 3 of 3