Case Name: Michael PAGE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Eddie L. PEARSON, Warden (Sussex II State Prison); United States Parole Commission, (Michael J. Gaines, Chairman), Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-09-10
Citations: 74 F. App'x 275
Docket Number: No. 03-6931
Parties: Michael PAGE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Eddie L. PEARSON, Warden (Sussex II State Prison); United States Parole Commission, (Michael J. Gaines, Chairman), Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 74
Pages: 275–276

Head Matter:
Michael PAGE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Eddie L. PEARSON, Warden (Sussex II State Prison); United States Parole Commission, (Michael J. Gaines, Chairman), Respondents-Appellees.
No. 03-6931.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 28, 2003.
Decided Sept. 10, 2003.
Michael Page, Appellant Pro Se. Anita Claire Snyder, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Michael Page 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, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1039, 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.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941, 122 S.Ct. 318, 151 L.Ed.2d 237 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Page 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.