Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06293/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06293-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Phillip Matthew Sierputowski
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6293

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

PHILLIP MATTHEW SIERPUTOWSKI,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Greenville. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. 

(6:13-cr-00270-MGL-1; 6:15-cv-01731-MGL)

Submitted: May 18, 2016 Decided: May 23, 2016

Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Phillip Matthew Sierputowski, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Jean 

Howard, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South 

Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6293 Doc: 5 Filed: 05/23/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Phillip Matthew Sierputowski seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order 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 

Sierputowski 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: 16-6293 Doc: 5 Filed: 05/23/2016 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: 16-6293 Doc: 5 Filed: 05/23/2016 Pg: 3 of 3