UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6338
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROBERT GARTRELL BOWLING,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (6:09-cr-00894-HMH-1; 6:13-cv-00451-HMH)
Submitted: June 19, 2014 Decided: June 23, 2014
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert Gartrell Bowling, Appellant Pro Se. William Jacob
Watkins, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Robert Gartrell Bowling seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying in part and granting in part his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 (2012) motion, * as well as its order denying his Fed. R.
Civ. P. 59(e) motion, and he has filed a motion for a
certificate of appealability. The orders Bowling seeks to
appeal are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). 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) (2006). 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.
*
The district court found that Bowling was incorrectly
sentenced pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(3) (2012). Bowling
has since been resentenced on his § 1028(a)(3) convictions.
2
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
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3