Case Name: Monty L. BRISCO, a/k/a Monty Brisco-El, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Michael J. GAINES; Edward F. Reilly, Jr.; Cranston J. Mitchell; John Simpson; United States Parole Commission; Fred E. Figueroa; George Snyder, Warden, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-06-28
Citations: 231 F. App'x 273
Docket Number: No. 07-6337
Parties: Monty L. BRISCO, a/k/a Monty Brisco-El, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Michael J. GAINES; Edward F. Reilly, Jr.; Cranston J. Mitchell; John Simpson; United States Parole Commission; Fred E. Figueroa; George Snyder, Warden, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 231
Pages: 273–274

Head Matter:
Monty L. BRISCO, a/k/a Monty Brisco-El, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Michael J. GAINES; Edward F. Reilly, Jr.; Cranston J. Mitchell; John Simpson; United States Parole Commission; Fred E. Figueroa; George Snyder, Warden, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 07-6337.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 21, 2007.
Decided: June 28, 2007.
Monty L. Brisco, Appellant Pro Se. Steve R. Matheny, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Monty L. Brisco, a prisoner in custody under a sentence imposed by a Superior Court of 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 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 Brisco has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the acts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.