United States v. Samuel Bowens , 624 F. App'x 91 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 15-7176
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff – Appellee,
    v.
    SAMUEL JUVON BOWENS,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Statesville.        Richard L.
    Voorhees, District Judge.  (5:07-cr-00050-RLV-DSC-14; 5:12-cv-
    00123-RLV)
    Submitted:   November 24, 2015            Decided:   December 4, 2015
    Before WILKINSON and    NIEMEYER,   Circuit   Judges,   and   HAMILTON,
    Senior Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Samuel Juvon Bowens, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina,
    Thomas A. O’Malley, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
    Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Samuel Juvon Bowens seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.                              The
    order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues
    a   certificate        of    appealability.             28   U.S.C.      § 2253(c)(1)(B)
    (2012).     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) (2012).                   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
    Bowens 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
    2
    contentions   are   adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before
    this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 15-7176

Citation Numbers: 624 F. App'x 91

Judges: Wilkinson, Niemeyer, Hamilton

Filed Date: 12/4/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024