Case Name: Yogi L. WASHINGTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Terry O'BRIEN, Warden, USP Lee County, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-09-16
Citations: 332 F. App'x 865
Docket Number: No. 09-7031
Parties: Yogi L. WASHINGTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Terry O’BRIEN, Warden, USP Lee County, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 332
Pages: 865–865

Head Matter:
Yogi L. WASHINGTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Terry O’BRIEN, Warden, USP Lee County, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 09-7031.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 3, 2009.
Decided: Sept. 16, 2009.
Yogi L. Washington, Petitioner Pro Se.
Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Yogi L. Washington, a prisoner in custody under a sentence imposed by a Superi- or Court of the District of Columbia, 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 certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of ap-pealability 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. See Miller-El v. Cock-rell, 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 Washington 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.