Case Name: Morris J. WARREN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Louis W. WINN, Jr., Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-09-15
Citations: 657 F. App'x 183
Docket Number: No. 16-6709
Parties: Morris J. WARREN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Louis W. WINN, Jr., Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 657
Pages: 183–184

Head Matter:
Morris J. WARREN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Louis W. WINN, Jr., Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 16-6709
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: September 13, 2016
Decided: September 15, 2016
Morris J. Warren, Appellant Pro Se. David Moskowitz, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appel-lee.
Before TRAXLER, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Morris J. Warren, a District of Columbia Code Offender incarcerated at FCI Petersburg, seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2258(c)(1)(A) (2012). 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) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Warren has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED