Case Name: Frank D. BOATSWAIN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden W.A. SHERROD; State of North Carolina, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-06-19
Citations: 474 F. App'x 192
Docket Number: No. 12-6184
Parties: Frank D. BOATSWAIN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden W.A. SHERROD; State of North Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 474
Pages: 192–192

Head Matter:
Frank D. BOATSWAIN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden W.A. SHERROD; State of North Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 12-6184.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 14, 2012.
Decided: June 19, 2012.
Frank D. Boatswain, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Frank D. Boatswain seeks to appeal the district court's order denying-relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition and motion for reconsideration. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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, 120 S.Ct. 1595.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Boatswain has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Boatswain's motion for a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.