UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-6573
CLAYTON MORRIS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
GEORGE SNYDER, Warden; UNITED STATES PAROLE
COMMISSION,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior
District Judge. (5:05-hc-00161-H)
Submitted: May 16, 2006 Decided: May 24, 2006
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Clayton Morris, Appellant Pro Se. Steve R. Matheny, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Clayton Morris, a District of Columbia prisoner
incarcerated in North Carolina, 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)
(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 any assessment of the constitutional claims
by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any
dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise
debatable. 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, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the
record and conclude that Morris has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
- 2 -
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
- 3 -