US v. Ronnie Bowman

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [998372784-2] Originating case number: 3:01-cr-00349-CMC-1,3:05-cv-00677-CMC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998414022] [10-6824]

US v. Ronnie Bowman

Doc. 0

Case: 10-6824 Document: 10

Date Filed: 08/30/2010

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6824 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff ­ Appellee, v. RONNIE BOWMAN, Defendant ­ Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (3:01-cr-00349-CMC-1; 3:05-cv-00677-CMC) Submitted: August 19, 2010 Decided: August 30, 2010

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronnie Bowman, Appellant Pro Se. Mark C. Moore, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 10-6824 Document: 10

Date Filed: 08/30/2010

Page: 2

PER CURIAM: Ronnie Bowman seeks to appeal the district court's

order treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as a successive 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion, and dismissing it on that basis. Bowman also appeals the district court's

subsequent order denying reconsideration. appealable unless a circuit justice or

The orders are not judge issues a

certificate of appealability. Reid v. Angelone, of 369 F.3d

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); 363, 369 (4th not Cir. issue 2004). absent A "a

certificate

appealability

will

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). relief on the merits, that a When the district court denies satisfies would this standard that claims 473, by the is 484

prisoner

demonstrating district debatable

reasonable of v.

jurists the

find

court's or

assessment Slack

constitutional 529 U.S.

wrong.

McDaniel,

(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. at 484-85. that We have independently has not made reviewed the

Slack, 529 U.S. the record and

conclude

Bowman

requisite

showing.

2

Case: 10-6824 Document: 10

Date Filed: 08/30/2010

Page: 3

Accordingly,

we

deny

Bowman's

motion

for

a

certificate

of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. Additionally, and informal brief as we an construe Bowman's to notice file a of appeal or

application

second

successive § 2255 motion. 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003).

United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d In order to obtain authorization to

file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on either: (1) newly discovered evidence, not previously discoverable establish by by due diligence, and that would be sufficient that, but to for

clear

convincing

evidence

constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense; or (2) a new rule of

constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review. § 2255(h) (West Supp. 2010). either of these criteria. 28 U.S.C.A.

Bowman's claims do not satisfy

Therefore, we deny authorization to

file a successive § 2255 motion. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the materials decisional

would

process. DISMISSED

3