Court Opinion

ID: 1029697
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-05 08:01:56.327454+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:26.133640
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 09-6022

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                  Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

MICHAEL LOUIS BOYD,

                  Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill.    Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief
District Judge. (0:05-cr-00945-JFA-1; 0:07-cv-70002-JFA)

Submitted:    July 30, 2009                 Decided:   August 4, 2009

Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Louis Boyd, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Claude Jendron,
Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Michael        Louis     Boyd        seeks     to     appeal     the   district

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West

Supp.   2009)    motion.          The    order      is    not    appealable       unless   a

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.

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.”          28        U.S.C.      § 2253(c)(2)       (2006).       A

prisoner     satisfies       this         standard         by     demonstrating         that

reasonable      jurists     would        find      that    any     assessment      of    the

constitutional     claims     by        the    district        court   is   debatable      or

wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district

court is likewise debatable.                   Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S.

322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);

Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).                                 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 the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

                                                                                  DISMISSED

                                               2