UNPUBLISHED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 Decided: June 2, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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