Court Opinion

ID: 1021078
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 23:00:56.242776+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:07:10.011483
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

court’s   order    denying   his   Fed.   R.    Civ.   P.   60(b)   motion    for

reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on his

28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition.              The order is not appealable

unless    a   circuit   justice    or   judge    issues     a   certificate   of

appealability.     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 -