US v. Lakeeshi Sims, No. 16-6218 (4th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6218 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. LAKEESHI SIMS, Defendant - Appellant.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 Before WYNN and Circuit Judge. DIAZ, Circuit Decided: Judges, and August 19, 2016 HAMILTON, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 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. A certificate of 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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 assessment wrong.” jurists of Slack the would find that constitutional v. McDaniel, 529 the claims U.S. district [is] 473, court’s debatable 484 (2000); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). or see 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 2 because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.