US v. Ronnie Bowman, No. 12-7773 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7773 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RONNIE BOWMAN, a/k/a Young, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (3:01-cr-00349-CMC-1; 3:05-cv-00677-CMC) Submitted: February 21, 2013 Before AGEE and Circuit Judge. DAVIS, Circuit Decided: February 25, 2013 Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronnie Bowman, Appellant Pro Se. Young, Assistant United States Carolina, for Appellee. Mark C. Moore, Anne Hunter Attorneys, Columbia, South Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ronnie Bowman seeks to appeal the district court s order denying his motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) entitled Independent Action in Equity. * unless a circuit appealability. justice or The order is not appealable judge issues a certificate 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). of 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 would find that the district court s assessment constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. of the 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 right. a debatable Slack, 529 claim of the denial U.S. at 484 85. We of a constitutional have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Bowman has not made the * Because Bowman s Rule 60(b) motion directly attacked his conviction, it was, in essence, an unauthorized and successive 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion over which the district court lacked jurisdiction. United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 206 (4th Cir. 2003). 2 requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. Additionally, and informal brief we as construe an successive § 2255 motion. Bowman s application to notice file of a appeal second Winestock, 340 F.3d at 208. or In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must discovered assert evidence, claims not based on previously either: (1) discoverable newly by due diligence, that would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense; or (2) a new rule of constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review. not satisfy 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255(h). either of these criteria. Bowman s claims do Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. DISMISSED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
