Court Opinion

ID: 9408233
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-11 21:00:37.683833+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:42.811900
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6305     Doc: 13         Filed: 07/10/2023    Pg: 1 of 4

                                           UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-6305

        (CHIEF) COL. MICHAEL S. OWLFEATHER-GORBEY,

                            Petitioner – Appellant,

                     v.

        WARDEN, FCI Beckley,

                            Respondent – Appellee.

                                              No. 22-6390

        (CHIEF) COL. MICHAEL S. OWLFEATHER-GORBEY,

                            Petitioner – Appellant,

                     v.

        WARDEN, FCI Beckley,

                            Respondent – Appellee.

        Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia,
        at Beckley. Frank W. Volk, District Judge. (5:21-cv-00583)

        Submitted: June 27, 2023                                         Decided: July 10, 2023
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6305      Doc: 13         Filed: 07/10/2023    Pg: 2 of 4

        Before KING, AGEE, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Michael S. Owlfeather-Gorbey, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6305       Doc: 13         Filed: 07/10/2023      Pg: 3 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               (Chief) Col. Michael S. Owlfeather-Gorbey, a District of Columbia offender, seeks

        to appeal the district court’s orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge,

        denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, and denying reconsideration. The orders

        are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See

        28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A); Madley v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 278 F.3d 1306, 1310 (D.C.

        Cir. 2002) (D.C. courts are “state courts for purposes of this statute”); cf. In re Wright, 826

        F.3d 774, 783 (4th Cir. 2016) (“when a prisoner being held ‘pursuant to the judgment of a

        State court’ files a habeas petition claiming the execution of his sentence is in violation of

        the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, the more specific § 2254 ‘and all

        associated statutory requirements’ shall apply, regardless of the statutory label the prisoner

        chooses to give his petition”). 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).

               When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard

        by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment of the

        constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (2017).

        When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate

        both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition states a

        debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134,

        140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

               We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Owlfeather-Gorbey

        has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability

                                                      3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6305      Doc: 13        Filed: 07/10/2023     Pg: 4 of 4

        and dismiss the appeals. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

        contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would

        not aid the decisional process.

                                                                                     DISMISSED

                                                    4