US v. Joshua Cogdell

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:07-cr-01521-JFA-2,3:14-cv-02020-JFA Copies to all parties and the district court. [999910899]. Mailed to: Joshua Michael Cogdell. [15-7537]

Appeal: 15-7537

Doc: 9

Filed: 08/16/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7537

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOSHUA MICHAEL COGDELL,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia.
Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (3:07-cr-01521-JFA-2; 3:14-cv-02020-JFA)

Submitted:

July 28, 2016

Decided:

August 16, 2016

Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joshua Michael Cogdell, Appellant Pro Se.
Robert Frank Daley,
Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7537

Doc: 9

Filed: 08/16/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Joshua Michael Cogdell seeks to appeal the district court’s
July 29, 2015 order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion
as time-barred and the court’s August 10, 2015 order construing
his motion to amend as a successive § 2255 motion and dismissing
it as unauthorized.

These orders are 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.
With regard to the July 29 order, we have independently
reviewed the record and conclude that Cogdell has not made the
requisite

showing.

Accordingly,

we

deny

a

certificate

of

appealability and dismiss the portion of the appeal related to
2

Appeal: 15-7537

Doc: 9

that order.

Filed: 08/16/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

As to the August 10 order, we recently granted

Cogdell’s motion to file a successive § 2255 motion asserting his
claim based on Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015)
(declaring

residual

clause

unconstitutionally vague).

of

Armed

Career

Criminal

Act

See In re Cogdell, No. 16-358 (4th

Cir. June 21, 2016) (unpublished order).

Accordingly, we deny a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the portion of the appeal
related to that order as moot.
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

3