US v. Michael Bower

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:09-cr-00240-TDS-1,1:14-cv-00553-TDS-JEP Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999929895]. Mailed to: appellant. [16-6815]

Appeal: 16-6815

Doc: 11

Filed: 09/15/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6815

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL CHAD BOWERS,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:09-cr-00240-TDS-1; 1:14-cv-00553-TDS-JEP)

Submitted:

September 13, 2016

Decided:

September 15, 2016

Before TRAXLER, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Chad Bowers, Appellant Pro Se. Graham Tod Green, Assistant
United States Attorney, Winston-Salem, North Carolina; Robert
Michael Hamilton, Harry L. Hobgood, Michael Francis Joseph, Angela
Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6815

Doc: 11

Filed: 09/15/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Michael Chad Bowers seeks to appeal the district court’s order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying
relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and motion for
recusal.
judge

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or

issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
issue

absent

“a

appealability.

28

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

of

showing

of

the

denial

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).

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

(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
Bowers 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

2

Appeal: 16-6815

Doc: 11

adequately

Filed: 09/15/2016

presented

in

the

Pg: 3 of 3

materials

before

this

court

and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

3