United States v. Shane Cowley, 814 F.3d 691

Cowley, convicted in 2000 for attempted robbery and murder-related offenses, sought IPA post-conviction DNA testing in 2014, well past the IPA time window.
District court denied testing as untimely under 18 U.S.C. § 3600(a)(10) and declined to issue a COA.
The IPA allows DNA testing with ten enumerated conditions; the last is timeliness, rebuttable by four exceptions.
Cowley argued good cause and manifest injustice exceptions apply to rebut the timeliness presumption.
This appeal addresses whether a COA is required for IPA appellate review and whether the district court erred in denying the IPA motion as untimely.
The court ultimately affirms the district court’s untimeliness ruling and holds no COA is required for IPA appeals.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
COA required for IPA appeal?	Cowley	U.S.	No COA required; appeal properly before court.
Whether the IPA motion was timely under §3600(a)(10)	Cowley	U.S.	Untimely; presumption against timeliness applies.
Whether good cause supports late filing	Cowley	U.S.	Not shown; incarceration alone insufficient.
Whether manifest injustice supports relief	Cowley	U.S.	Not shown; denial would not be an unmistakable injustice.

United States v. Pitera, 675 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 2012) (IPA requires ten conditions; testing may produce new evidence)
United States v. Jordan, 594 F.3d 1265 (10th Cir. 2010) (COA not required for IPA appeal (contextual guidance))
United States v. Fasano, 577 F.3d 572 (5th Cir. 2009) (timeliness and IPA considerations in appeals)
United States v. Sosa, 364 F.3d 507 (4th Cir. 2004) (limitations and tolling concepts in habeas-like contexts)
United States v. Roane, 378 F.3d 382 (4th Cir. 2004) (good cause standard in related habeas-discovery context)
United States v. Sosa, 364 F.3d 507 (4th Cir. 2004) (limitations and tolling concepts in habeas-like contexts)