Case Name: Claude DAVID, Petitioner-Appellant, v. B.G. COMPTON, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-02-04
Citations: 120 F. App'x 981
Docket Number: No. 04-7609
Parties: Claude DAVID, Petitioner—Appellant, v. B.G. COMPTON, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before LUTTIG and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 120
Pages: 981–982

Head Matter:
Claude DAVID, Petitioner—Appellant, v. B.G. COMPTON, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 04-7609.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 27, 2005.
Decided: Feb. 4, 2005.
Claude David, Appellant pro se.
Before LUTTIG and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Claude David 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 appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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 David has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dis pense 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
Because David was convicted in a District of Columbia court, he is required to obtain a certificate of appealability in order to appeal the denial of his § 2241 petition. See Madley v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 278 F.3d 1306 (D.C.Cir.2002).