Case Name: Daniel W. KINARD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Terry O'BRIEN, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-10-20
Citations: 296 F. App'x 358
Docket Number: No. 08-7047
Parties: Daniel W. KINARD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Terry O’BRIEN, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 296
Pages: 358–359

Head Matter:
Daniel W. KINARD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Terry O’BRIEN, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 08-7047.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 14, 2008.
Decided: Oct. 20, 2008.
Daniel W. Kinard, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Linn Eckert, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before KING, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Daniel W. Kinard, a prisoner in federal custody serving a sentence imposed by the District of Columbia, 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 appeal-ability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong, and any dis-positive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 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 Kinard 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.