US v. James Cobler

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Certificate of appealability denied. Originating case number: 5:12-cr-00026-GCM-1, 5:15-cv-80856-GCM Copies to all parties and the district court. [999978675]. Mailed to: James Cobler. [16-6414]

Appeal: 16-6414

Doc: 10

Filed: 12/01/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6414

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMES ROBERT COBLER,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Graham C. Mullen, Senior
District Judge. (5:12-cr-00026-GCM-1; 5:15-cv-80856-GCM)

Submitted:

November 17, 2016

Decided:

December 1, 2016

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Robert Cobler, Appellant Pro Se.
Nancy Spodick Healey,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6414

Doc: 10

Filed: 12/01/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
James Robert Cobler seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, in which he
claimed counsel was ineffective, and but for counsel’s deficient
performance, he would not have pled guilty.

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.”
(2012).

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 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).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Cobler has not established that his counsel was ineffective.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss
the 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