-
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7174 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ROSWELL BOWMAN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Martin K. Reidinger, District Judge. (3:08-cr-00010-MR-1; 3:09-cv-00551-MR) Submitted: November 4, 2010 Decided: December 15, 2010 Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roswell Bowman, Appellant Pro Se. C. Nicks Williams, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Roswell Bowman seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his
28 U.S.C.A. § 2255(West Supp. 2010) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). 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). 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. Slack,
529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Bowman 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 2 before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3
Document Info
Docket Number: 10-7174
Citation Numbers: 404 F. App'x 809
Judges: Niemeyer, Motz, Hamilton
Filed Date: 12/15/2010
Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 11/5/2024