Court Opinion

ID: 4521186
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2020-03-31 21:00:20.027239+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:03:24.300518
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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

                                              2