United States v. James Cobler ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 16-6414
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    JAMES ROBERT COBLER,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Graham C. Mullen, Senior
    District Judge. (5:12-cr-00026-GCM-1; 5:15-cv-80856-GCM)
    Submitted:   November 17, 2016            Decided:   December 1, 2016
    Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    James Robert Cobler, Appellant Pro Se.    Nancy Spodick Healey,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    James Robert Cobler seeks to appeal the district court’s order
    denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, in which he
    claimed counsel was ineffective, and but for counsel’s deficient
    performance, he would not have pled guilty.      The order is not
    appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate
    of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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)
    (2012).   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).
    We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
    Cobler has not established that his counsel was ineffective.
    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
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 16-6414

Judges: Duncan, Keenan, Per Curiam, Wynn

Filed Date: 12/1/2016

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024