Frank Boatswain v. W. Sherrod

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [998792719-2]; denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [998792714-2]. Originating case number: 5:10-hc-02204-D. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998878039].. [12-6184]

Appeal: 12-6184

Doc: 18

Filed: 06/19/2012

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6184

FRANK D. BOATSWAIN,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
WARDEN W. A. SHERROD; STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,
Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Dever, III,
Chief District Judge. (5:10-hc-02204-D)

Submitted:

June 14, 2012

Decided: June 19, 2012

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Frank D. Boatswain, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-6184

Doc: 18

Filed: 06/19/2012

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Frank
court’s

order

petition

and

appealable

D.

Boatswain

denying
motion

unless

seeks

relief
for

a

on

certificate

of

appeal

the

28

U.S.C.

§ 2254

his

reconsideration.

circuit

certificate of appealability.
A

to

justice

The
or

district

order

judge

(2006)
is

issues

not
a

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006).

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

When the district court denies

prisoner

reasonable

assessment

wrong.

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 Boatswain has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly,

we deny Boatswain’s motion for a certificate of appealability,
deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.
We

dispense

with

oral

argument
2

because

the

facts

and

legal

Appeal: 12-6184

Doc: 18

Filed: 06/19/2012

Pg: 3 of 3

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

DISMISSED

3