Case Name: Edward Pernell HARRIS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. Joseph BROOKS, Warden Federal Correctional Complex Petersburg, Virginia; Department of Corrections, D.C.; Records Center, D.C., Respondents - Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-04-05
Citations: 124 F. App'x 819
Docket Number: No. 04-7632
Parties: Edward Pernell HARRIS, Petitioner — Appellant, v. Joseph BROOKS, Warden Federal Correctional Complex Petersburg, Virginia; Department of Corrections, D.C.; Records Center, D.C., Respondents — Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 124
Pages: 819–819

Head Matter:
Edward Pernell HARRIS, Petitioner — Appellant, v. Joseph BROOKS, Warden Federal Correctional Complex Petersburg, Virginia; Department of Corrections, D.C.; Records Center, D.C., Respondents — Appellees.
No. 04-7632.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 18, 2005.
Decided: April 5, 2005.
Edward Pernell Harris, Appellant pro se.
Rachel Celia Ballow, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Edward Pernell Harris, a prisoner in federal custody serving a sentence imposed by the District of Columbia, seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); see Madley v. United States Parole Com/m'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 that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or -wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336, 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 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Harris 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