Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06218/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06218-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lakeeshi Sims
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6218

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

LAKEESHI SIMS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Anderson. J. Michelle Childs, District 

Judge. (8:12-cr-00787-JMC-1; 8:15-cv-02834-JMC)

Submitted: August 5, 2016 Decided: August 19, 2016

Before WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lakeeshi Sims, Appellant Pro Se. Carrie Fisher Sherard, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6218 Doc: 9 Filed: 08/19/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Lakeeshi Sims 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.” 

Id. § 2253(c)(2). 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 

Sims has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a 

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. The motion 

for preparation of a transcript at government expense is denied. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

Appeal: 16-6218 Doc: 9 Filed: 08/19/2016 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: 16-6218 Doc: 9 Filed: 08/19/2016 Pg: 3 of 3