United States of America v. James Timothy Cobb

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-6311
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMES TIMOTHY COBB,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
Clarksburg. Thomas S. Kleeh, Chief District Judge. (1:18-cr-00033-TSK-MJA-1; 1:22-
cv-00025-TSK)
Submitted: July 26, 2024 Decided: September 12, 2024
Before WILKINSON, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Timothy Cobb, Appellant Pro Se. Eleanor F. Hurney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
James Timothy Cobb seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on
his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and denying reconsideration. The orders are not appealable
unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1)(B). 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). When the district court
denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that
reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims
debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (2017). 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Cobb has not made
the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
appeal. We also deny Cobb’s motion for bail pending appeal. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 2 of 2 --