Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07893/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07893-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 09-7893

HAROLD BOYD, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

SUPERINTENDENT J. HAYNES,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, 

Chief District Judge. (5:07-hc-02088-FL)

Submitted: July 1, 2010 Decided: July 15, 2010

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Harold Boyd, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Hollis, 

Assistant Attorney General Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 09-7893 Doc: 17 Filed: 07/15/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Harold Boyd, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s 

orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. 

The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. See 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.” Id. § 2253(c)(2). When the district 

court has denied relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this 

standard by demonstrating that “reasonable jurists would find 

the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims 

debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000). When the district court has denied 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. Id. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude Boyd has 

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a 

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also 

deny the motion for a copy of the transcript at Government 

expense. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

Appeal: 09-7893 Doc: 17 Filed: 07/15/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 09-7893 Doc: 17 Filed: 07/15/2010 Pg: 3 of 3