UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7750
NATHANIEL ADEL STEWART-BEY, a/k/a Nathaniel
Adel Stewart,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION; B. A.
BLEDSOE,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District
Judge. (CA-04-447-7-SGW)
Submitted: April 14, 2005 Decided: April 19, 2005
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Nathaniel Adel Stewart-Bey, Appellant Pro Se. John Leslie
Brownlee, United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Nathaniel Adel Stewart-Bey, convicted and sentenced in
the superior court of the District of Columbia and now incarcerated
in Virginia, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying
relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000),
challenging the revocation of his parole by the United States
Parole Commission. The order is not appealable unless a circuit
justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (2000); 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) (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 that Stewart-Bey 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 contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 2 -