UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6445
ARNETT COBB,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
ISAAC FULWOOD, JR., Chair; U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION; SCOTT
KUBIK, Hearing Examiner, U.S. Parole Commission; WARDEN,
FCI Gilmer,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:10-cv-00066-FPS-JES)
Submitted: August 29, 2011 Decided: September 20, 2011
Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Arnett Cobb, Appellant Pro Se. Helen Campbell Altmeyer,
Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Arnett Cobb, a District of Columbia Code offender,
seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his
28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 2006 & Supp. 2011) petition. The order
is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (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 Cobb has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3