King v. Warden
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
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)
July 27, 2007
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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. unless a circuit justice or judge The order is not appealable issues a certificate of
See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000).
of appealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." (2000). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)
A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 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.
- 3 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?