Case Name: Charles Edward FORRESTER, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. George SNYDER, Warden; United States Parole Commission, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-08-04
Citations: 140 F. App'x 505
Docket Number: No. 05-6469
Parties: Charles Edward FORRESTER, Jr., Petitioner—Appellant, v. George SNYDER, Warden; United States Parole Commission, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 140
Pages: 505–505

Head Matter:
Charles Edward FORRESTER, Jr., Petitioner—Appellant, v. George SNYDER, Warden; United States Parole Commission, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 05-6469.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted July 27, 2005.
Decided Aug. 4, 2005.
Charles Edward Forrester, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Charles Edward Forrester, Jr., a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000). The orders are 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 both that the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. 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 Forrester 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