Oliver Boling v. U.S. Parole Commissioner

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:10-cv-02957-CMC. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998840704]. Mailed to: Oliver Boling. [12-6181]

Appeal: 12-6181

Document: 5

Date Filed: 04/26/2012

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6181

OLIVER M. BOLING,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
U.S. PAROLE COMMISSIONER; WARDEN M. L. RIVERA,
Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence.
Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (4:10-cv-02957-CMC)

Submitted:

April 19, 2012

Decided:

April 26, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Oliver M. Boling, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens,
Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-6181

Document: 5

Date Filed: 04/26/2012

Page: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Oliver

M.

Boling,

a

prisoner

in

federal

custody

pursuant to a Washington, D.C., conviction, seeks to appeal the
district court’s order accepting in part the recommendation of
the

magistrate

judge

and

denying

relief

on

§ 2241 (West 2006 & Supp. 2011) petition.
appealable

unless

a

circuit

certificate of appealability.

justice

this

28

U.S.C.A.

The order is not

or

judge

issues

a

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006);

see Madley v. United States Parole Comm’n, 278 F.3d 1306, 1310
(D.C. Cir. 2002).
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).
relief

on

the

demonstrating
district

merits,
that

court’s

debatable

or

a

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.
at 484-85.

2

Slack, 529 U.S.

Appeal: 12-6181

Document: 5

Date Filed: 04/26/2012

Page: 3 of 3

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Boling has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
dispense

with

oral

argument

because

the

facts

and

We

legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3