Bowling v. Johnson ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 09-7123
    THOMAS FRANKLIN BOWLING,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    GENE JOHNSON, Director, VDOC; VIRGINIA PAROLE BOARD,
    Respondents - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke.     Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
    District Judge. (7:09-cv-00085-jlk-mfu)
    Submitted:    January 14, 2010               Decided:   January 20, 2010
    Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Thomas Franklin Bowling, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Thomas Franklin Bowling seeks to appeal the district
    court’s    order    denying    relief       on   his     
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
        (2006)
    petition.     The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice
    or judge issues a certificate of appealability.                            See 
    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).        A
    prisoner     satisfies        this        standard       by        demonstrating         that
    reasonable    jurists       would     find       that    any        assessment      of     the
    constitutional      claims    by     the    district      court       is   debatable        or
    wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district
    court is likewise debatable.                 See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 
    537 U.S. 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 Bowling
    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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-7123

Judges: Motz, Gregory, Shedd

Filed Date: 1/20/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024