Opinion
No. 20-7147
12-22-2020
DONNELL M. DYER-EL, Petitioner - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; MARK J. BOLSTER, Acting Warden; FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL COMPLEX, Medium, Petersburg, VA, Respondents - Appellees.
Donnell M. Dyer-El, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District Judge. (3:19-cv-00365-JAG-RCY) Before THACKER, HARRIS, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Donnell M. Dyer-El, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Donnell M. Dyer-El, a District of Columbia Code offender, incarcerated at FCI Petersburg, seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 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). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017). 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).
Because Dyer-El 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. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 278 F.3d 1306, 1310 (D.C. Cir. 2002). --------
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Dyer-El 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED