George Cowell v. Harold Clarke

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-7434
GEORGE SANGRIA COWELL,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD W. CLARKE,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, Senior District Judge. (1:18-cv-00391-LO-TCB)
Submitted: May 21, 2020 Decided: October 28, 2020
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, WILKINSON, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
George Sangria Cowell, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
George Sangria Cowell seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on
his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2018) petition and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. * The
orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of
appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2018). 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) (2018). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies
this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s
assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct.
759, 773-74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the
prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that
the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v.
Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Cowell has not made
the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to
proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument
*
Cowell’s Rule 59(e) motion relitigated old matters and added new arguments that
could have been raised earlier. The district court denied the motion for failure to show a
clear error of law or manifest injustice.
2
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3