Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Boyd v. Beck, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Bosy Akeiva Boyd's appeal of the district court's dismissal of his habeas corpus petition. The district court had dismissed the petition as time-barred under the one-year statute of limitations. The appellate court denied Boyd's request for a certificate of appealability, finding that he had not made a substantial showing that his constitutional rights were denied. The court also dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the materials before the court.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2005-10-04 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 05-7142

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Bosy Akeiva Boyd's appeal of the district court's dismissal of his habeas corpus petition. The district court had dismissed the petition as time-barred under the one-year statute of limitations. The appellate court denied Boyd's request for a certificate of appealability, finding that he had not made a substantial showing that his constitutional rights were denied. The court also dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the materials before the court.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    1 views2 pages

    Boyd v. Beck, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Bosy Akeiva Boyd's appeal of the district court's dismissal of his habeas corpus petition. The district court had dismissed the petition as time-barred under the one-year statute of limitations. The appellate court denied Boyd's request for a certificate of appealability, finding that he had not made a substantial showing that his constitutional rights were denied. The court also dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the materials before the court.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 05-7142

    BOSY AKEIVA BOYD,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    THEODIS BECK, Secretary NC; STATE OF NORTH
    CAROLINA,
    Respondents - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
    District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District
    Judge. (CA-04-465)

    Submitted:

    September 27, 2005

    Decided:

    October 4, 2005

    Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Bosy Akeiva Boyd, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III,
    NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
    Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Bosy Akeiva Boyd, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the
    district courts order adopting the report and recommendation of
    the magistrate judge and dismissing his petition filed under 28
    U.S.C. 2254 (2000) as time-barred under 28 U.S.C. 2244(d)(1)
    (2000).
    judge

    The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or


    issues

    certificate

    of

    appealability.

    28

    U.S.C.

    2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000).

    A prisoner satisfies this

    standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that


    his constitutional claims are debatable, and that any dispositive
    procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or
    wrong.

    See

    Miller-El

    v.

    Cockrell,

    537

    U.S.

    322,

    336

    (2003);

    Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d
    676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).

    We have independently reviewed the

    record and conclude Boyd has not made the requisite showing.
    Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and
    dismiss the appeal.
    facts

    and

    materials

    legal
    before

    We dispense with oral argument because the

    contentions
    the

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in

    the

    aid

    the

    decisional process.

    DISMISSED

    - 2 -

    You might also like