US v. Jeannie Cosby


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed denying certificate of appealability.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]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-7343 Doc: 5 Filed: 12/22/2016 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-7343 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JEANNIE LARGENT COSBY, Defendant -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 Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?