Case Name: Harold BOYD, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Superintendent J. HAYNES, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-07-15
Citations: 388 F. App'x 259
Docket Number: No. 09-7898
Parties: Harold BOYD, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Superintendent J. HAYNES, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 388
Pages: 259–259

Head Matter:
Harold BOYD, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Superintendent J. HAYNES, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 09-7898.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 1, 2010.
Decided: July 15, 2010.
Harold Boyd, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Hollis, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Ap-pellee.
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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 ap-pealability. 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (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 ap-pealability 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.