Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Bowden v. Anderson, 4th Cir. (2009)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a court case in which William Billy Bowden Jr. sought to appeal the district court's denial of his habeas corpus petition. The appeals court notes that an appeal can only be granted with a certificate of appealability, which requires a substantial constitutional issue. However, the appeals court independently reviewed the case and determined that Bowden did not make the requisite showing of a debatable constitutional issue. Therefore, the appeals court denied the certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2009-11-18 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 09-6756

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a court case in which William Billy Bowden Jr. sought to appeal the district court's denial of his habeas corpus petition. The appeals court notes that an appeal can only be granted with a certificate of appealability, which requires a substantial constitutional issue. However, the appeals court independently reviewed the case and determined that Bowden did not make the requisite showing of a debatable constitutional issue. Therefore, the appeals court denied the certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    2 views2 pages

    Bowden v. Anderson, 4th Cir. (2009)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case in which William Billy Bowden Jr. sought to appeal the district court's denial of his habeas corpus petition. The appeals court notes that an appeal can only be granted with a certificate of appealability, which requires a substantial constitutional issue. However, the appeals court independently reviewed the case and determined that Bowden did not make the requisite showing of a debatable constitutional issue. Therefore, the appeals court denied the certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 09-6756

    WILLIAM BILLY BOWDEN, JR.,


    Petitioner Appellant,
    v.
    WARDEN RICK ANDERSON,
    Respondent Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
    James C. Dever III,
    District Judge. (5:08-hc-02046-D)

    Submitted:

    November 4, 2009

    Decided:

    November 18, 2009

    Before MICHAEL and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    William Billy Bowden, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.


    Clarence Joe
    DelForge, III, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North
    Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    William

    Billy

    Bowden,

    Jr.,

    seeks

    to

    appeal

    the

    district courts order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. 2254


    (2006) petition.

    The order is not appealable unless a circuit

    justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.


    U.S.C. 2253(c)(1) (2006).
    not

    issue

    absent

    constitutional
    prisoner

    satisfies

    reasonable

    jurists

    constitutional

    A certificate of appealability will

    substantial

    right.

    28

    this
    would

    claims

    by

    See 28

    showing

    U.S.C.

    the

    the

    denial

    2253(c)(2)

    standard
    find

    of

    by

    that

    district

    of

    (2006).

    demonstrating

    any

    assessment

    court

    is

    that

    of

    the

    debatable

    or

    wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district


    court is likewise debatable.

    See 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 Bowden


    has not made the requisite showing.
    certificate
    dispense

    of

    with

    appealability
    oral

    argument

    and

    Accordingly, we deny a

    dismiss

    because

    the

    the

    appeal.

    facts

    and

    We
    legal

    contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the


    court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED

    You might also like