UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6063
ERIC LEWIS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
PATRICIA STANSBERRY, 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. (1:09-cv-00266-LMB-JFA)
Submitted: September 30, 2010 Decided: October 8, 2010
Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eric Lewis, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin J. Mikolashek, Catherine
DeRoever Wood, Assistant United States Attorneys, Alexandria,
Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Eric Lewis, a District of Columbia Code Offender,
seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his
28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 2006 & Supp. 2010) petition. The order
is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). When the district court denies
relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by
demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the
district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is
debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484
(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).
When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the
prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural
ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable
claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S.
at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and
conclude that Lewis has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss
the appeal. We deny Lewis’s motions to appoint counsel and to
expedite the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
2
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3