Bonnell Boyd v. James Beale

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:16-cv-00030-JAG Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999997429]. Mailed to: B Boyd. [16-7128]

Appeal: 16-7128

Doc: 9

Filed: 01/04/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7128

BONNELL BOYD,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
JAMES BEALE, Warden Deerfield Correctional Center,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
John A. Gibney, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:16-cv-00030-JAG)

Submitted:

December 9, 2016

Before WYNN and
Circuit Judge.

FLOYD,

Circuit

Decided:

Judges,

and

January 4, 2017

HAMILTON,

Senior

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jonathan P. Sheldon, SHELDON, FLOOD & HAYWOOD, P.L.C., Fairfax,
Virginia; Thomas M. Wolf, LECLAIR RYAN, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellant.
Laura Haeberle Cahill, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7128

Doc: 9

Filed: 01/04/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Bonnell Boyd seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition.

The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues
a certificate of appealability.
(2012).

See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A)

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) (2012).
relief

on

the

merits,

demonstrating
district

that

court’s

debatable

or

a

prisoner

reasonable

assessment

wrong.

When the district court denies
satisfies

jurists

would

of

the

v.

McDaniel,

Slack

this

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.
certificate
dispense

of

with

appealability
oral

argument

and

dismiss

because

2

Accordingly, we deny a

the

the

appeal.

facts

and

We
legal

Appeal: 16-7128

Doc: 9

contentions

Filed: 01/04/2017

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3