Small v. Stansberry , 258 F. App'x 552 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-7256
PATRICK SMALL,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
PATRICIA R. STANSBERRY,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior
District Judge. (5:06-hc-02171-H)
Submitted: December 13, 2007 Decided: December 20, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Patrick Small, Appellant Pro Se. David T. Husband, BUREAU OF
PRISONS, Butner, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Patrick Small, a District of Columbia prisoner, seeks to
appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable 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 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 that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the
district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive
procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable.
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676,
683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record
and conclude that Small 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
*
Because Small was convicted in a District of Columbia court,
he is required to obtain a certificate of appealability in order to
appeal the denial of his § 2241 petition. See Madley v. United
States Parole Comm’n, 278 F.3d 1306 (D.C. Cir. 2002).
- 2 -