Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06162/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06162-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6162

TAVEIO RAUOL BILAL BOSTON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN REYNOLDS,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. 

(5:14-cv-04473-MGL)

Submitted: August 18, 2016 Decided: August 22, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Taveio Rauol Bilal Boston, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, 

Senior Assistant Attorney General, Kaycie Smith Timmons, Assistant 

Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6162 Doc: 6 Filed: 08/22/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Taveio Rauol Bilal Boston seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order 

is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 

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) (2012). 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 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 

U.S. 322, 336-38 (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. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Boston has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

Appeal: 16-6162 Doc: 6 Filed: 08/22/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 16-6162 Doc: 6 Filed: 08/22/2016 Pg: 3 of 3