US v. Johnny Cobb, No. 08-8007 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8007 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. JOHNNY O NEAL COBB, a/k/a Tip, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (3:04-cr-00171-CMC-1; 3:08-cv-70063-CMC) Submitted: January 15, 2009 Before MOTZ and Circuit Judge. SHEDD, Circuit Decided: Judges, and January 23, 2009 HAMILTON, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Johnny O Neal Cobb, Appellant Pro Se. Stacey Denise Haynes, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Johnny O Neal appeal the 28 U.S.C. § 2255 The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or certificate § 2253(c)(1) (2000). issue absent constitutional prisoner reasonable a substantial satisfies constitutional appealability. (2000) 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not right. jurists of his district motion. a on to order issues relief seeks court s judge denying Cobb 28 this by U.S.C. find the of the § 2253(c)(2) standard would claims showing that by of (2000). demonstrating any district denial assessment court is a A that of debatable the or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. court is likewise debatable. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). 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 dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.