Oliver Boling v. U.S. Parole Commissioner, No. 12-6181 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6181 OLIVER M. BOLING, Petitioner Appellant, v. U.S. PAROLE COMMISSIONER; WARDEN M. L. RIVERA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (4:10-cv-02957-CMC) Submitted: April 19, 2012 Decided: April 26, 2012 Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Oliver M. Boling, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Oliver M. Boling, a prisoner in federal custody pursuant to a Washington, D.C., conviction, seeks to appeal the district court s order accepting in part the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on § 2241 (West 2006 & Supp. 2011) petition. appealable unless a circuit certificate of appealability. justice this 28 U.S.C.A. The order is not or judge issues a 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006); see Madley v. United States Parole Comm n, 278 F.3d 1306, 1310 (D.C. Cir. 2002). 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) (2006). relief on the demonstrating district merits, that court s debatable or a prisoner reasonable assessment wrong. When the district court denies 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. at 484-85. 2 Slack, 529 U.S. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Boling has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. dispense with oral argument because the facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3
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.
