UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6840
GREGORY E. WILLIAMS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
BOBBY T. COMPTON, Warden; EDWARD F. REILLY,
JR., Chairman, U.S. Parole Commission,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
District Judge. (CA-03-487-7)
Submitted: April 18, 2005 Decided: May 11, 2005
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gregory E. Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Julie C. Dudley, Assistant
United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Gregory Williams, a District of Columbia prisoner housed
in a federal institution in Virginia, seeks to appeal the district
court’s order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241
(2000). 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) (reasoning that District of
Columbia is a “state” court for purposes of § 2253(c), and while a
parole determination claim does not attack the original conviction
or sentence, it nevertheless “arises out of” the original state
process). 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 the district
court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or
wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district
court also are debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537
U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484
(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have
independently reviewed the record and conclude that Williams 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
- 2 -
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 3 -