COBB
v.
UNITED STATES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
James Lee Cobb sought a certificate of appealability from the District Court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion for post-conviction relief. The court denied his request because he failed to demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find debatable either the merits of his underlying claims or the procedural issues he sought to raise.
Cobb is not entitled to a certificate of appealability because he failed to demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find debatable either the merits of his underlying claims or the procedural issues he sought to raise.
“To obtain a certificate of appealability, the petitioner must show that reasonable jurists would find debatable both (1) the merits of the underlying claims and (2) the procedural issues he seeks to raise.”
Establishes the legal standard required for obtaining a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCobb filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 challenging his conviction. An earlier order denied this motion. Cobb subsequently filed a notice of appeal…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Certificate of Appealability Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
An earlier order denied James Lee Cobb’s motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (Civ. Doc. 99) Subsequently, Cobb filed a notice of appeal from that order that includes a request for a certificate of appealability. (Civ. Doc. 103) Cobb is not entitled to a certificate of appealability. To obtain a certificate of appealability, the petitioner must show that reasonable jurists would find debatable both (1) the merits of the underlying claims and (2) the procedural issues he seeks to raise. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 478 (2000); Eagle v. Linahan, 279 F. 3d 926, 935 (11th Cir 2001). Because Cobb fails to show that reasonable jurists would debate either the merits of the claims or the procedural issues, he is not entitled to a certificate of appealability or to appeal in forma pauperis. Cobb’s request for a certificate of appealability (Civ. Doc. 103) included in the notice of appeal is DENIED. Leave to appeal in forma pauperis is DENIED. Cobb must obtain permission from the circuit court to appeal in forma pauperis. DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on January 27, 2025.
Aa Mewes Feber) Gaga Mono. ji el 0 . Charlene Edwards Honeywell United States District Judge
Copies to: Pro Se Petitioner Counsel of Record