Oliver M. Boling v. Warden FCI Estill, No. 17-6042 (4th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6042 OLIVER M. BOLING, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN FCI ESTILL, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (4:16-cv-03227-CMC) Submitted: May 26, 2017 Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Oliver M. Boling, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Decided: June 2, 2017 PER CURIAM: Oliver M. Boling, a District of Columbia prisoner serving his sentence in a federal facility, seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition without prejudice as an unauthorized second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 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). 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. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 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 Boling has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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 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.
