Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07256/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07256-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Patrick Small
Appellant
Patricia R. Stansberry
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7256

PATRICK SMALL,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

PATRICIA R. STANSBERRY,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior

District Judge. (5:06-hc-02171-H)

Submitted: December 13, 2007 Decided: December 20, 2007

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Patrick Small, Appellant Pro Se. David T. Husband, BUREAU OF

PRISONS, Butner, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-7256 Doc: 16 Filed: 12/20/2007 Pg: 1 of 2
*Because Small 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:

Patrick Small, 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 Small 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: 07-7256 Doc: 16 Filed: 12/20/2007 Pg: 2 of 2