UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-7246
EUGENE JEROME CUNNINGHAM,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
DARLENE DREW, Warden – FCI Bennettsville,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (9:11-cv-03179-CMC)
Submitted: October 11, 2012 Decided: October 16, 2012
Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eugene Jerome Cunningham, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier
Bowens, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Eugene Jerome Cunningham, a District of Columbia
prisoner housed in federal custody, 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. 2012) 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); Madley v. U.S. Parole Comm’n,
278 F.3d 1306, 1309 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (“[W]e 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.
2
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Cunningham 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 contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
3