Court Opinion

ID: 9352599
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-09 00:00:29.063898+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:00:10.952220
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-6478      Doc: 15         Filed: 01/06/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 21-6478

        TIMOTHY SEAN COOGLE,

                             Petitioner - Appellant,

                      v.

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at
        Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:17-cr-00167-1; 2:18-cv-
        01291)

        Submitted: September 30, 2022                                     Decided: January 6, 2023

        Before THACKER, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Timothy Sean Coogle, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-6478      Doc: 15          Filed: 01/06/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Timothy Sean Coogle seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the

        recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Coogle’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255

        motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of

        appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this

        standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could 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 motion

        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 Coogle has not made

        the requisite showing.      Accordingly, we deny Coogle’s motion for a certificate of

        appealability, deny as moot his motion to expedite, 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