Harold Boyd, Jr. v. Superintendant J. Haynes, No. 09-7898 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7898 HAROLD BOYD, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, v. SUPERINTENDENT J. HAYNES, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief District Judge. (5:07-hc-02081-FL) Submitted: July 1, 2010 Decided: July 15, 2010 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Harold Boyd, Jr., Assistant Attorney Appellee. Appellant General, Pro Se. Raleigh, Mary North Carla Hollis, Carolina, for Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Harold Boyd, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate § 2253(c)(1) (2006). issue absent a of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right. showing of Id. § 2253(c)(2). the denial of a When the district court has denied relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find the district debatable (2000). court s or wrong. assessment Slack v. of the constitutional McDaniel, 529 U.S. claims 473, 484 When the district court has denied 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. Id. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude Boyd 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.
