Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Boyd, 4th Cir. (2009)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding defendant Michael Louis Boyd's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The three-judge panel dismissed Boyd's appeal, finding that he did not make the requisite substantial showing that he was denied a constitutional right, as is required for a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Therefore, the panel denied Boyd's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed his appeal without oral argument.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2009-08-04 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 09-6022

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding defendant Michael Louis Boyd's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The three-judge panel dismissed Boyd's appeal, finding that he did not make the requisite substantial showing that he was denied a constitutional right, as is required for a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Therefore, the panel denied Boyd's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed his appeal without oral argument.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    4 views2 pages

    United States v. Boyd, 4th Cir. (2009)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding defendant Michael Louis Boyd's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The three-judge panel dismissed Boyd's appeal, finding that he did not make the requisite substantial showing that he was denied a constitutional right, as is required for a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Therefore, the panel denied Boyd's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed his appeal without oral argument.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    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

    courts order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 (West


    Supp.

    2009)

    motion.

    The

    order

    is

    not

    appealable

    unless

    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
    prisoner
    reasonable

    right.

    satisfies
    jurists

    constitutional

    28

    this

    by

    2253(c)(2)

    standard

    would

    claims

    U.S.C.

    find
    the

    that

    by

    demonstrating

    any

    district

    (2006).

    assessment

    court

    is

    A
    that

    of

    debatable

    the
    or

    wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district


    Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S.

    court is likewise debatable.

    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

    You might also like