Jerry E. Boyd v. HAROLD CLARKE, Director; MARK HERRING, The Attorney General of the State

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7716

JERRY E. BOYD,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD CLARKE, Director; MARK HERRING, The Attorney General of the
State,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District Judge. (1:19-cv-00942-LO-IDD)

Submitted: March 19, 2020 Decided: March 31, 2020

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jerry E. Boyd, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

PER CURIAM:
Jerry E. Boyd seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28
U.S.C. § 2254 (2018) petition and his motion to reinstate. The orders are not appealable
unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2018). 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) (2018). When the
district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating
that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims
debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017). 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).
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 this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED