Bailey v. Snyder , 282 F. App'x 232 ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                                UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 08-6192
    JEROME BAILEY,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    GEORGE SNYDER,
    Defendant - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.  James C. Dever III,
    District Judge. (5:07-hc-02074-D)
    Submitted:     June 19, 2008                 Decided:   June 24, 2008
    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Jerome Bailey, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Edward Lockridge, FEDERAL
    MEDICAL CENTER BUTNER, Butner, North Carolina, Rudolf A. Renfer,
    Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Jerome Bailey, a District of Columbia Code Offender,
    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.
    See 
    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. See
    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 Bailey 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 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-6192

Citation Numbers: 282 F. App'x 232

Judges: Wilkinson, Niemeyer, Michael

Filed Date: 6/24/2008

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024