Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-19-07716/USCOURTS-ca4-19-07716-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jerry E. Boyd
Appellant
Harold Clarke
Appellee
Mark Herring
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7716

JERRY E. BOYD,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD CLARKE, Director; MARK HERRING, The Attorney General of the 

State,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District Judge. (1:19-cv-00942-LO-IDD)

Submitted: March 19, 2020 Decided: March 31, 2020

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jerry E. Boyd, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7716 Doc: 9 Filed: 03/31/2020 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Jerry E. Boyd seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 

U.S.C. § 2254 (2018) petition and his motion to reinstate. The orders are not appealable 

unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2018). 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) (2018). When the 

district court denies 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. See Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017). 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Boyd 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 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

DISMISSED

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7716 Doc: 9 Filed: 03/31/2020 Pg: 2 of 2