Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07278/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07278-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
William L. Cook
Appellant
Lisa Hollingsworth
Appellee
United States Parole Commission
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7278

WILLIAM L. COOK,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION; LISA

HOLLINGSWORTH, Warden,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge.

(8:07-cv-00274-DKC)

Submitted: December 10, 2007 Decided: December 27, 2007

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William L. Cook, Appellant Pro Se. James A. Frederick, GOODELL,

DEVRIES, LEECH & DANN, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland; Allen F. Loucks,

Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-7278 Doc: 9 Filed: 12/27/2007 Pg: 1 of 2
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

William L. Cook, a District of Columbia Code offender

housed in a federal prison, 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); see

Madley v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 278 F.3d 1306, 1310 (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) (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 Cook 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: 07-7278 Doc: 9 Filed: 12/27/2007 Pg: 2 of 2