US v. Phillip Boice, No. 08-7205 (4th Cir. 2008)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7205 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. PHILLIP GERMAINE BOICE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (5:05-cr-00126-H-1; 5:07-cv-00177-H) Submitted: November 20, 2008 Decided: December 1, 2008 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Phillip Germaine Boice, Appellant Pro Se. Steve R. Matheny, Assistant United States Attorney, Kelly Michele Perry, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Phillip Germaine Boice seeks to appeal the district court s order motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues denying a relief certificate § 2253(c)(1) (2000). issue absent constitutional prisoner a constitutional of substantial right. jurists his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 appealability. (2000) 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not satisfies reasonable on 28 this would claims by showing U.S.C. the the denial § 2253(c)(2) standard find of by that (2000). demonstrating any district of assessment court is a A that of the debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Boice has not made the certificate dispense of with requisite showing. appealability oral argument and Accordingly, dismiss because the the we deny appeal. facts and a We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.