Court Opinion

ID: 4174210
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-06-05 07:03:41.402838+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:14.522580
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                        UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                       No. 17-6042

OLIVER M. BOLING,

                     Petitioner - Appellant,

              v.

WARDEN FCI ESTILL,

                     Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.
Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (4:16-cv-03227-CMC)

Submitted: May 26, 2017                                              Decided: June 2, 2017

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Oliver M. Boling, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

       Oliver M. Boling, a District of Columbia prisoner serving his sentence in a federal

facility, seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012)

petition without prejudice as an unauthorized second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254

(2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability.   28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).          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) (2012). 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. 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 Boling has not made

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 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 this

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                                DISMISSED

                                             2