UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-7660
RONNIE EWINGS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
TERRY O'BRIEN, Warden, USP Hazelton,
Respondent – Appellee,
and
UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION,
Respondent.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley,
District Judge. (1:11-cv-00153-IMK-JSK)
Submitted: December 20, 2012 Decided: December 27, 2012
Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Linn Richard Walker, Assistant Federal Public Defender,
Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. Jarod James Douglas,
Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Ronnie Ewings, a District of Columbia Code offender,
seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the
magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny 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).
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 Ewings 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
3
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
4