Case ID: f-appx_389/html/0208-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

John Eric BOBO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. George E. SNYDER, Respondent--Appellee.
    No. 10-6525.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: July 22, 2010.
    Decided: Aug. 2, 2010.
    John Eric Bobo, Appellant pro se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Ap-pellee.
    Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

John Eric Bobo, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 2006 & Supp.2010) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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 petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and' conclude that Bobo has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of ap-pealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Bobo’s motion to supplement the record. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED.