Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Bowling v. Young, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1 views2 pages
    1) Thomas Bowling sought to appeal the district court's denial of his Rule 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. 2) A certificate of appealability is required to appeal the denial, which will not issue without a substantial showing that constitutional rights were denied. 3) The Fourth Circuit independently reviewed the record and determined that Bowling did not make the requisite showing to warrant a certificate of appealability. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2006-11-21 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 06-7154

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1) Thomas Bowling sought to appeal the district court's denial of his Rule 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. 2) A certificate of appealability is required to appeal the denial, which will not issue without a substantial showing that constitutional rights were denied. 3) The Fourth Circuit independently reviewed the record and determined that Bowling did not make the requisite showing to warrant a certificate of appealability. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    1 views2 pages

    Bowling v. Young, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Thomas Bowling sought to appeal the district court's denial of his Rule 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. 2) A certificate of appealability is required to appeal the denial, which will not issue without a substantial showing that constitutional rights were denied. 3) The Fourth Circuit independently reviewed the record and determined that Bowling did not make the requisite showing to warrant a certificate of appealability. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 06-7154

    THOMAS FRANKLIN BOWLING,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    S.K. YOUNG, Warden,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
    Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
    District Judge. (7:02-cv-01091-jlk)

    Submitted:

    November 15, 2006

    Decided:

    November 21, 2006

    Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Thomas Franklin Bowling, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Thomas Franklin Bowling seeks to appeal the district
    courts

    order

    denying

    his

    Fed.

    R.

    Civ.

    P.

    60(b)

    motion

    for

    reconsideration of the district courts order denying relief on his


    28 U.S.C. 2254 (2000) petition.
    unless

    circuit

    appealability.

    justice

    or

    The order is not appealable

    judge

    issues

    certificate

    of

    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone,

    369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004).

    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) (2000).

    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.
    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 -

    You might also like