UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-6199
SAMUEL HARRIS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
PATRICIA STANSBERRY, Warden; ISAAC FULWOOD, Chairman United
States Parole Commission,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (1:10-cv-01337-JCC-TRJ)
Submitted: May 18, 2012 Decided: May 25, 2012
Before AGEE, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Samuel Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Yiris E. Cornwall, Assistant
United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Samuel Harris, 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. 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 Harris 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
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
2
presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3