Summary
applying 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) to D.C. Code offender's appeal of district court's denial of § 2241 petition
Summary of this case from Allen v. O'BrienOpinion
No. 14-7362
03-19-2015
CHARLES BROOKS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. ERIC D. WILSON, Warden, Respondent - Appellee.
Charles Brooks, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan Holland Hambrick, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:12-cv-00853-HEH) Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Brooks, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan Holland Hambrick, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Charles Brooks, a District of Columbia Code offender, seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) 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)(A) (2012); Wilson v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 652 F.3d 348, 351-52 (3d Cir. 2011); Madley v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 278 F.3d 1306, 1308 (D.C. Cir. 2002).
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) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner must demonstrate 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 Brooks has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED