US v. Jeannie Cosby, No. 16-7343 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-7343 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JEANNIE LARGENT COSBY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, District Judge. (1:07-cr-00033-MR-DLH-3) Submitted: December 20, 2016 Decided: December 22, 2016 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WYNN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeannie Largent Cosby, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jeannie Largent Cosby seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying and dismissing her self-styled “Motion Under 28 U.S.C. Section 5555, Amendment 794 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody.” With respect to the portion of the court’s order denying Cosby’s effort to receive a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) based on Amendment 794 to the Sentencing Guidelines, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, court’s order for we the affirm reasons this it portion of stated. the United district States v. Cosby, No. 1:07-cr-00033-MR-DLH-3 (W.D.N.C. Aug. 22, 2016). The portion of the district court’s order construing Cosby’s motion as seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) and dismissing appealable such unless request a for circuit certificate of appealability. A certificate of relief justice as successive or judge is issues not a 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). relief on the demonstrating district debatable merits, that court’s or a prisoner reasonable assessment wrong. When the district court denies Slack satisfies jurists would of the v. McDaniel, 2 this standard find constitutional 529 U.S. by that the claims is 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 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 claim of the denial of a constitutional right. a debatable Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Cosby has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal in part. We dispense contentions with are oral argument adequately because presented in the facts and the materials legal before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART 3
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.
