Case ID: f-appx_73/html/0634-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Charles Edward FORRESTER, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, and Kenneth N. Hammond; Phillip Duckett, Petitioners, v. David A. Garraghty, Warden; District of Columbia Agencies; United States Parole Commission; Anthony Williams, Mayor; Edward F. Reilly, Jr., Chairman, United States Parole Commission; Odie Washington, in his official capacity as Director, D.C. Department of Corrections; John Ashcroft, Attorney General, Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 03-6568.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 28, 2003.
    Decided Sept. 4, 2003.
    Charles Edward Forrester, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Kimberly C. Matthews, Office of Corporation Counsel, Washington, D.C.; Richard Parker, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees.
    Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM:

Charles Edward Forrester, Jr., a District of Columbia prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order 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. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1040, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Forrester has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Forrester’s motion for appointment of counsel, 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.