Case Name: Fred D. COOMBS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. George SNYDER, Respondent-Appellee, and United States Parole Commission, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-08-11
Citations: 331 F. App'x 208
Docket Number: No. 08-8263
Parties: Fred D. COOMBS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. George SNYDER, Respondent-Appellee, and United States Parole Commission, Respondent.
Judges: Before MICHAEL, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 331
Pages: 208–208

Head Matter:
Fred D. COOMBS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. George SNYDER, Respondent-Appellee, and United States Parole Commission, Respondent.
No. 08-8263.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 30, 2009.
Decided: Aug. 11, 2009.
Fred D. Coombs, Appellant Pro Se. Steve R. Matheny, Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Fred D. Coombs, a District of Columbia prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certify cate of appealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive 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 Coombs 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.