US v. Robert Bowling, No. 14-6338 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6338 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ROBERT GARTRELL BOWLING, Defendant -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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 certificate of appealability. appeal are not appealable he issues a certificate § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). issue absent a The unless of a filed a motion for orders Bowling seeks circuit justice or appealability. 28 a to judge U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right. has showing of the denial 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). of a 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 Cockrell, (2000); (2003). see Miller-El v. 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 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 contentions with are oral argument adequately because presented in the facts and the materials legal before this court and argument would not aid the 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.
