Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06525/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06525-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 10-6525

JOHN ERIC BOBO,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

GEORGE E. SNYDER,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, 

District Judge. (5:08-hc-02138-BO)

Submitted: July 22, 2010 Decided: August 2, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Eric Bobo, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., 

Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-6525 Doc: 15 Filed: 08/02/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

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 (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 Bobo

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

certificate of appealability 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 

Appeal: 10-6525 Doc: 15 Filed: 08/02/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

adequately presented in the materials before the court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 10-6525 Doc: 15 Filed: 08/02/2010 Pg: 3 of 3