Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07366/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07366-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7366

ALVIN DARRELL SMITH,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

WARDEN D. L. STINE, USP McCreary; WARDEN

STEVEN SMITH, District of Columbia; JOHN R.

SIMPSON, USDC - USDOJ,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern

District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert E. Maxwell, Senior

District Judge. (2:05-cv-00064-REM)

Submitted: January 17, 2008 Decided: February 13, 2008

Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alvin Darrell Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Helen Campbell Altmeyer,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-7366 Doc: 19 Filed: 02/13/2008 Pg: 1 of 2
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Alvin Darrell Smith, a District of Columbia prisoner,

seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and 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 Smith has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. The court further grants the Respondent’s motion to

substitute custodian and denies Smith’s motions to stop transfer

and directing Warden Stine to comply with his declaration. 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

Appeal: 07-7366 Doc: 19 Filed: 02/13/2008 Pg: 2 of 2