Forrester v. Garraghty ( 2003 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7728
CHARLES EDWARD FORRESTER, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
DAVID GARRAGHTY, Warden, Greensville
Correctional Center; MICHAEL GAINES, Chairman,
United States Parole Commission; ODIE
WASHINGTON, In his official capacity as
Director, D.C. Department of Corrections,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District
Judge. (CA-01-1366-AM)
Submitted: June 30, 2003 Decided: July 18, 2003
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charles Edward Forrester, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Lawrence Joseph
Leiser, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Charles Edward Forrester, Jr., seeks to appeal the district
court's orders denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in
a § 2241 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A
certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by
a district court absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner
satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists
would find both that his constitutional claims are debatable and
that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are
also debatable or wrong. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 123
S. Ct. 1029, 1040 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484
(2000). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Forrester 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
2