USCA4 Appeal: 23-6311 Doc: 13 Filed: 09/12/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6311

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JAMES TIMOTHY COBB,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Thomas S. Kleeh, Chief District Judge. (1:18-cr-00033-TSK-MJA-1; 1:22- cv-00025-TSK)

Submitted: July 26, 2024 Decided: September 12, 2024

Before WILKINSON, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Timothy Cobb, Appellant Pro Se. Eleanor F. Hurney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-6311 Doc: 13 Filed: 09/12/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

James Timothy Cobb seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on

his

motion and denying reconsideration. The orders are not appealable

unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See

(c)(1)(B). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing

of the denial of a constitutional right.”

(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,

(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,

(2012) (citing

Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000)).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Cobb has not made

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. We also deny Cobb’s motion for bail pending 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