UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-7301
REGINALD A. JACKSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN, FCI Petersburg Low; U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District
Judge. (1:10-cv-01126-LO-JFA)
Submitted: February 16, 2012 Decided: February 22, 2012
Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Reginald A. Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin J. Mikolashek,
Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Reginald A. Jackson, a District of Columbia prisoner
housed in federal custody, seeks to appeal the district court’s
order 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); see Madley v. U.S. Parole
Comm’n, 278 F.3d 1306, 1309 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (“We conclude that
a court of the District [of Columbia] is a state court for the
purpose of [§ 2253(c)].”). 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 Jackson has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny Jackson’s motions to remand and for release
2
pending appeal, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss
the 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