Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06815/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06815-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Chad Bowers
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 1 of 3
2

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. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) (2012). 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 

Appeal: 16-6815 Doc: 11 Filed: 09/15/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 16-6815 Doc: 11 Filed: 09/15/2016 Pg: 3 of 3