Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-19-07596/USCOURTS-ca4-19-07596-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Cody Mitchell Besch
Appellant
Stan Young
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7596

CODY MITCHELL BESCH, 

Petitioner - Appellant, 

v. 

STAN YOUNG, Warden, Pocahontas State Correctional Center, 

Respondent - Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at 

Roanoke. James P. Jones, District Judge. (7:19-cv-00018-JPJ-PMS) 

Submitted: February 18, 2020 Decided: February 21, 2020

Before MOTZ, HARRIS, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Joseph Abraham Sanzone, SANZONE & BAKER, PC, Lynchburg, Virginia, for 

Appellant. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7596 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/21/2020 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM: 

Cody Mitchell Besch seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 

28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2018) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2018). 

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) (2018). When the district court denies relief 

on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists 

would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. 

See Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (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 petition 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 Besch has not made 

the requisite showing. 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

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7596 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/21/2020 Pg: 2 of 2