# United States v. Anthony Boyd

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · September 27, 2013 · 538 F. App'x 350

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1042374

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony Michael BROWN, A/K/A Solo, Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** September 27, 2013
- **Citations:** 538 F. App'x 350
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Motz, Diaz, Floyd
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1042374

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6832

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

ANTHONY EUGENE BOYD,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., District Judge. (3:07-cr-00045-RJC-1; 3:10-cv-00213-RJC)

Submitted: September 24, 2013 Decided: September 27, 2013

Before NIEMEYER and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Eugene Boyd, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas A. O’Malley, C.
Nick Williams, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte,
North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Anthony Eugene Boyd seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West

Supp. 2013) motion. The order is not appealable unless a

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that

reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s

assessment of the constitutional claims is 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 motion 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 Boyd has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1042374. Public record. Not legal advice.