UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7972
WALTER R. GLADDEN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
JOSEPH M. BROOKS, Warden; UNITED STATES PAROLE
COMMISSION,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District
Judge. (CA-04-75-1)
Submitted: June 30, 2005 Decided: July 25, 2005
Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Walter R. Gladden, Appellant Pro Se. Anita Claire Snyder, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Walter R. Gladden, 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 court 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 are also
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 Gladden has not made the
requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral
- 2 -
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
- 3 -