Case Name: Ainsworth C. JACKSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION; George Snyder, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-07-31
Citations: 286 F. App'x 80
Docket Number: No. 08-6200
Parties: Ainsworth C. JACKSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION; George Snyder, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 286
Pages: 80–81

Head Matter:
Ainsworth C. JACKSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION; George Snyder, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 08-6200.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 15, 2008.
Decided: July 31, 2008.
Ainsworth C. Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Steve R. Matheny, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Ap-pellee.
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Ainsworth C. Jackson, a federal prisoner and District of Columbia Code offender, seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition. The order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of ap-pealability 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 disposi-tive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cock-rell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Jackson 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 be fore the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.