Case Name: Charles Edward FORRESTER, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. David GARRAGHTY, Warden, Greensville Correctional Center; Michael Gaines, Chairman, United States Parole Commission; Odie Washington, In his official capacity as Director, D.C. Department of Corrections, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-07-18
Citations: 68 F. App'x 523
Docket Number: No. 02-7728
Parties: Charles Edward FORRESTER, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. David GARRAGHTY, Warden, Greensville Correctional Center; Michael Gaines, Chairman, United States Parole Commission; Odie Washington, In his official capacity as Director, D.C. Department of Corrections, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 68
Pages: 523–524

Head Matter:
Charles Edward FORRESTER, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. David GARRAGHTY, Warden, Greensville Correctional Center; Michael Gaines, Chairman, United States Parole Commission; Odie Washington, In his official capacity as Director, D.C. Department of Corrections, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 02-7728.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted June 30, 2003.
Decided July 18, 2003.
Charles Edward Forrester, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Lawrence Joseph Leiser, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Charles Edward Forrester, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2241 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court 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 both that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1040, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Forrester 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.