Case Name: Ronnie EWINGS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Terry O'BRIEN, Warden, USP Hazelton, Respondent-Appellee, and United States Parole Commission, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-12-27
Citations: 503 F. App'x 196
Docket Number: No. 12-7660
Parties: Ronnie EWINGS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Terry O’BRIEN, Warden, USP Hazelton, Respondent-Appellee, and United States Parole Commission, Respondent.
Judges: Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 503
Pages: 196–197

Head Matter:
Ronnie EWINGS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Terry O’BRIEN, Warden, USP Hazelton, Respondent-Appellee, and United States Parole Commission, Respondent.
No. 12-7660.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 20, 2012.
Decided: Dec. 27, 2012.
Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ronnie Ewings, a District of Columbia Code offender, seeks to appeal the district court's order adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation to deny relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 2006 & Supp. 2012) 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)(A) (2006). 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) (2006). 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 Ewings 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.