UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7362
CHARLES BROOKS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
ERIC D. WILSON, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:12-cv-00853-HEH)
Submitted: March 17, 2015 Decided: March 19, 2015
Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charles Brooks, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan Holland Hambrick,
Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Charles Brooks, a District of Columbia Code offender, seeks
to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28
U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable
unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of
appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012); Wilson v.
U.S. Parole Comm’n, 652 F.3d 348, 351-52 (3d Cir. 2011); Madley
v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 278 F.3d 1306, 1308 (D.C. Cir. 2002).
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) (2012). When the district court denies
relief on the merits, a prisoner must demonstrate 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
Brooks has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny
a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral
2
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3