Garris v. United States Parole Commission

170 F. App'x 267
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedMarch 1, 2006
Docket05-7318
StatusUnpublished

This text of 170 F. App'x 267 (Garris v. United States Parole Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Garris v. United States Parole Commission, 170 F. App'x 267 (4th Cir. 2006).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

David Isaiah Garris, a District of Columbia prisoner housed in a federal institution in Maryland, seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) habeas corpus 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); see Madley v. United States Parole Comm’n, 278 F.3d 1306, 1310 (D.C.Cir. 2002) (reasoning that District of Columbia is a “state” court for purposes of § 2253(e), and while a parole determination claim does not attack the original conviction or sentence, it nevertheless “arises out of’ the original state process). 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 the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court also are debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. *268 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 Garris 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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Slack v. McDaniel
529 U.S. 473 (Supreme Court, 2000)
Miller-El v. Cockrell
537 U.S. 322 (Supreme Court, 2003)
Madley v. United States Parole Commission
278 F.3d 1306 (D.C. Circuit, 2002)
Rose v. Lee
252 F.3d 676 (Fourth Circuit, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
170 F. App'x 267, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garris-v-united-states-parole-commission-ca4-2006.