Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07356/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07356-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 09-7356

LEE ERIK BOOZER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

TRACY RAY, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, Magistrate 

Judge. (3:08-cv-00489-MHL)

Submitted: May 24, 2010 Decided: June 11, 2010

Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lee Erik Boozer, Appellant Pro Se. Gregory William Franklin, 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 09-7356 Doc: 18 Filed: 06/11/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Lee Erik Boozer seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s 

order∗

 ∗ The parties consented to the exercise of jurisdiction by 

the magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2006).

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

The order is 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.” 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 Boozer 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 

Appeal: 09-7356 Doc: 18 Filed: 06/11/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

DISMISSED

Appeal: 09-7356 Doc: 18 Filed: 06/11/2010 Pg: 3 of 3