Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07638/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07638-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 07-7638

VINCENT L. SIMMONS,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN TERRY O’BRIEN; UNITED STATES PAROLE

COMMISSION,

 Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior

District Judge. (7:07-cv-00193-jlk)

Submitted: February 21, 2008 Decided: February 27, 2008

Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Vincent L. Simmons, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Linn Eckert, Assistant

United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-7638 Doc: 7 Filed: 02/27/2008 Pg: 1 of 2
*Because Simmons 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.

United States Parole Comm’n, 278 F.3d 1306 (D.C. Cir. 2002).

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Vincent L. Simmons, a District of Columbia prisoner,

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.*

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 Simmons 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

Appeal: 07-7638 Doc: 7 Filed: 02/27/2008 Pg: 2 of 2