UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7318
DAVID ISAIAH GARRIS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.
(CA-05-481-8-AW)
Submitted: February 23, 2006 Decided: March 1, 2006
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David Isaiah Garris, Appellant Pro Se. Ariana Wright Arnold,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
David Isaiah Garris, a District of Columbia prisoner
housed in a federal institution in Maryland, seeks to appeal the
district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000)
habeas corpus petition. 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 Garris 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 -