Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 10 views

    Billy Boyd v. State of South Carolina, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes two appeals by Billy Roy Boyd of district court orders dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition and motion without prejudice. A three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals independently reviewed the record and denied Boyd's request for a certificate of appealability, which is required to appeal orders dismissing § 2254 petitions. The panel concluded that Boyd did not make the requisite showing that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong. As a result, the appeals were dismissed.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    Billy Boyd v. State of South Carolina, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    10 views4 pages
    This document summarizes two appeals by Billy Roy Boyd of district court orders dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition and motion without prejudice. A three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals independently reviewed the record and denied Boyd's request for a certificate of appealability, which is required to appeal orders dismissing § 2254 petitions. The panel concluded that Boyd did not make the requisite showing that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong. As a result, the appeals were dismissed.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2013-03-12 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 12-6490A

    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 summarizes two appeals by Billy Roy Boyd of district court orders dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition and motion without prejudice. A three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals independently reviewed the record and denied Boyd's request for a certificate of appealability, which is required to appeal orders dismissing § 2254 petitions. The panel concluded that Boyd did not make the requisite showing that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong. As a result, the appeals were dismissed.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    10 views4 pages

    Billy Boyd v. State of South Carolina, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes two appeals by Billy Roy Boyd of district court orders dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition and motion without prejudice. A three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals independently reviewed the record and denied Boyd's request for a certificate of appealability, which is required to appeal orders dismissing § 2254 petitions. The panel concluded that Boyd did not make the requisite showing that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong. As a result, the appeals were dismissed.

    Copyright:

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

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 12-6490

    BILLY ROY BOYD,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    No. 12-6553

    BILLY ROY BOYD,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    BERNARD MCKIE, Warden of Kirkland Correctional Institution,
    Respondent Appellee,
    and
    ALAN WILSON,
    Respondent.

    Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
    of South Carolina, at Aiken.
    Terry L. Wooten, District Judge;
    Timothy M. Cain, District Judge.
    (1:11-cv-02981-TLW; 1:12-cv00201-TLW)

    Submitted:

    February 28, 2013

    Before KING and


    Circuit Judge.

    AGEE,

    Decided:

    Circuit

    Judges,

    and

    March 12, 2013

    HAMILTON,

    Senior

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Billy Roy Boyd, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Billy Roy Boyd, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the
    district

    courts

    orders

    accepting

    the

    recommendation

    of

    the

    magistrate judge and dismissing his motion and his 28 U.S.C.


    2254 (2006) petition without prejudice.
    appealable

    unless

    circuit

    certificate of appealability.
    A

    certificate

    of

    justice

    The orders are not


    or

    judge

    issues

    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006).

    appealability

    will

    not

    issue

    absent

    substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.


    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2) (2006).
    relief

    on

    the

    demonstrating
    district

    merits,
    that

    courts

    debatable

    or

    prisoner

    reasonable

    assessment

    wrong.

    When the district court denies

    Slack

    satisfies

    jurists

    this

    would

    of

    the

    v.

    McDaniel,

    standard

    find

    constitutional
    529

    U.S.

    by

    that

    the

    claims

    is

    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 Boyd has not made the requisite showing.

    Accordingly, we

    deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in


    forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeals.
    3

    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

    You might also like