King v. Warden, Federal Correctional Institution , 235 F. App'x 150 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-6534
DARNELL EUGENE KING,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
WARDEN, Federal Correctional Institution -
Williamsburg; UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (0:06-cv-01202-CMC)
Submitted: July 27, 2007 Decided: August 15, 2007
Before MICHAEL, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Darnell Eugene King, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Darnell Eugene King, a federal prisoner and District of
Columbia Code offender, appeals the district court’s order adopting
the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge to deny
relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition and suggesting
respondents make a good faith effort to obtain King’s records and
definitively substantiate or refute his claim that his presentence
investigation report is inaccurate. The order is not appealable
unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of
appealability. See 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 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. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-
38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v.
Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently
reviewed the record and conclude that King 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
- 2 -
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 3 -