Case Name: Bruce Everett VOID-EL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James CROSS, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-02-18
Citations: 411 F. App'x 633
Docket Number: No. 10-7072
Parties: Bruce Everett VOID-EL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James CROSS, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 411
Pages: 633–634

Head Matter:
Bruce Everett VOID-EL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James CROSS, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 10-7072.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 10, 2011.
Decided: Feb. 18, 2011.
Bruce Everett Void-El, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON and DAVIS, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Bruce Everett Void-El, a prisoner in federal custody serving a sentence im posed by the District of Columbia, seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 2006 & Supp.2010) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); see Madley v. United States 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) (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 Void-El 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.