US v. Jeannie Cosby

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed denying certificate of appealability. Originating case number: 1:07-cr-00033-MR-DLH-3. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999992798]. Mailed to: Jeannie Cosby. [16-7343]

Appeal: 16-7343

Doc: 5

Filed: 12/22/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7343

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JEANNIE LARGENT COSBY,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger,
District Judge. (1:07-cr-00033-MR-DLH-3)

Submitted:

December 20, 2016

Decided:

December 22, 2016

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WYNN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.

Jeannie Largent Cosby, Appellant Pro Se.
Amy Elizabeth Ray,
Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7343

Doc: 5

Filed: 12/22/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Jeannie Largent Cosby seeks to appeal the district court’s
order

denying

and

dismissing

her

self-styled

“Motion

Under

28 U.S.C. Section 5555, Amendment 794 to Vacate, Set Aside, or
Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody.”
With respect to the portion of the court’s order denying
Cosby’s effort to receive a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) (2012) based on Amendment 794 to the Sentencing
Guidelines, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error.

Accordingly,

court’s

order

for

we

the

affirm

reasons

this
it

portion

of

stated.

the

United

district

States

v.

Cosby, No. 1:07-cr-00033-MR-DLH-3 (W.D.N.C. Aug. 22, 2016).
The

portion

of

the

district

court’s

order

construing

Cosby’s motion as seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012)
and

dismissing

appealable

such

unless

request
a

for

circuit

certificate of appealability.
A

certificate

of

relief
justice

as

successive

or

judge

is

issues

not
a

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).

appealability

will

not

issue

absent

“a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).
relief

on

the

demonstrating
district
debatable

merits,
that

court’s
or

a

prisoner

reasonable

assessment

wrong.

When the district court denies

Slack

satisfies

jurists

would

of

the

v.

McDaniel,

2

this

standard

find

constitutional
529

U.S.

by

that

the

claims

is

473,

484

Appeal: 16-7343

Doc: 5

Filed: 12/22/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

(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

claim of the denial of a constitutional right.

a

debatable

Slack, 529 U.S.

at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Cosby has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal in part.
We

dispense

contentions

with
are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the

facts

and

the

materials

legal
before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART

3