Michael Owlfeather-Gorbey v. Warden

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: July 10, 2023
• Docket: 22-6390
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6390 Doc: 7 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UNPUBLISHED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

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: 22-6390 Doc: 7 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 22-6390 Doc: 7 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: 22-6390 Doc: 7 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