Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-19-07707/USCOURTS-ca4-19-07707-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Joshua Michael Cogdell
Appellant
United States of America
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7707

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

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; 3:16-

cv-02061-JFA)

Submitted: January 21, 2020 Decided: January 24, 2020

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joshua Michael Cogdell, Appellant Pro Se. William Kenneth Witherspoon, Assistant 

United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, 

South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7707 Doc: 7 Filed: 01/24/2020 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Joshua Michael Cogdell seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on 

his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2018) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

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

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 

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: 19-7707 Doc: 7 Filed: 01/24/2020 Pg: 2 of 2