Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06692/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06692-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Deborah Lee Tipton
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6692

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

DEBORAH LEE TIPTON,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, 

District Judge. (1:12-cr-00025-MR-DLH-1; 1:15-cv-00250-MR)

Submitted: October 13, 2016 Decided: October 18, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Deborah Lee Tipton, Appellant Pro Se. Gill Paul Beck, Sr., Amy 

Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorneys, David A. 

Thorneloe, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, 

North Carolina; Cortney Randall, Assistant United States 

Attorney, Elizabeth Margaret Greenough, OFFICE OF THE UNITED 

STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6692 Doc: 10 Filed: 10/18/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Deborah Lee Tipton 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 

Tipton has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

Appeal: 16-6692 Doc: 10 Filed: 10/18/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 16-6692 Doc: 10 Filed: 10/18/2016 Pg: 3 of 3