US v. Michael Cowen
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [998656115-2], denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [998621433-2] Originating case number: 6:07-cr-00034-NKM-2,6:10-cv-80282-NKM-mfu Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998702433]. Mailed to: Charlene Day and Michael Cowen. [11-6823]
Appeal: 11-6823
Document: 12
Date Filed: 10/18/2011
Page: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6823
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL COWEN, a/k/a Mr. Ross,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Lynchburg.
Norman K. Moon, District
Judge. (6:07-cr-00034-NKM-2; 6:10-cv-80282-NKM-mfu)
Submitted:
October 13, 2011
Decided:
October 18, 2011
Before SHEDD, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Cowen, Appellant Pro Se. Charlene Day, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, C. Patrick Hogeboom, III, Assistant
United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 11-6823
Document: 12
Date Filed: 10/18/2011
Page: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Michael
Cowen
seeks
to
appeal
the
district
court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011)
motion.
judge
The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or
issues
a
certificate
§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006).
issue
absent
“a
of
28
U.S.C.
A certificate of appealability will not
substantial
constitutional right.”
appealability.
showing
of
the
denial
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006).
of
a
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
Cockrell,
(2000);
(2003).
see
Miller-El
v.
537
U.S.
322,
336-38
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.
529 U.S. at 484-85.
and
conclude
Accordingly,
that
we
Slack,
We have independently reviewed the record
Cowen
deny
has
his
not
made
motions
appealability and dismiss the appeal.
the
for
requisite
a
showing.
certificate
of
We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
2
Appeal: 11-6823
Document: 12
Date Filed: 10/18/2011
Page: 3 of 3
presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?