Court Opinion

ID: 9930420
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-06 21:00:48.0833+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:17:59.364965
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6735      Doc: 12         Filed: 02/05/2024     Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6735

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        TIMOTHY SEAN COOGLE,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        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)

        Submitted: January 30, 2024                                       Decided: February 5, 2024

        Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Timothy Sean Coogle, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6735      Doc: 12         Filed: 02/05/2024      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Timothy Sean Coogle appeals the district court’s order denying his motion

        requesting that the court return his cell phone to his family’s home. Coogle pled guilty to

        attempted enticement of a minor in 2018. In this appeal, he argues that the court erred in

        denying his motion for the return of the cell phone because the messages therein would

        prove his innocence. We need not consider this argument because Coogle did not raise it

        in the district court. See In re Under Seal, 749 F.3d 276, 285 (4th Cir. 2014) (“[A]bsent

        exceptional circumstances, we do not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal.”

        (ellipsis and internal quotation marks omitted)). And even if we were to consider Coogle’s

        argument, we would reject it. In his plea agreement, Coogle explicitly agreed to abandon

        any interest he had in his cell phone. Because Coogle has not demonstrated that his guilty

        plea was invalid through a successful appeal or collateral attack on his conviction, the

        district court properly found that Coogle’s plea agreement precluded his request for the

        return of his cell phone. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v.

        Coogle, No. 2:17-cr-00167-1 (S.D.W. Va. June 23, 2023). 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.

                                                                                        AFFIRMED

                                                     2