William Terry v. Kuma Deeboo

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [998800979-2] Originating case number: 5:11-cv-00012-FPS-JSK Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998865095]. Mailed to: William Terry. [12-6226]

Appeal: 12-6226

Doc: 8

Filed: 05/31/2012

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6226

WILLIAM Q. TERRY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
KUMA DEEBOO, Warden, F.C.I. Gilmer; U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION
Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Wheeling.
Frederick P. Stamp,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:11-cv-00012-FPS-JSK)

Submitted:

May 24, 2012

Before MOTZ and
Circuit Judge.

DAVIS,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

and

May 31, 2012

HAMILTON,

Senior

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Q. Terry, Appellant Pro Se.
Helen Campbell Altmeyer,
Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for
Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-6226

Doc: 8

Filed: 05/31/2012

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
William

Q.

Terry,

a

District

of

Columbia

prisoner

housed in federal custody, seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 2006 &
Supp. 2011) petition.

The order is not appealable unless a

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006); Madley v. U.S. Parole Comm’n,
278 F.3d 1306, 1309 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (“We conclude that a court
of the District [of Columbia] is a state court for the purpose
of

[§

2253(c)].”).

issue

absent

“a

A

certificate

substantial

of

appealability

showing

of

the

will

denial

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006).

of

not
a

When the

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies
this

standard

by

demonstrating

that

reasonable

jurists

would

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional
claims is debatable or wrong.

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484 (2000);

Cockrell,

(2003).

When

see

Miller–El

the

district

v.

court

denies

537

U.S.

relief

on

322,

336–38

procedural

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive
procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a
debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right.

Slack,

529 U.S. at 484–85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Terry has not made the requisite showing.
2

Accordingly, we

Appeal: 12-6226

deny

Doc: 8

Terry’s

Filed: 05/31/2012

motion

dismiss the appeal.
facts

and

materials

legal
before

for

a

Pg: 3 of 3

certificate

of

appealability

and

We dispense with oral argument because the

contentions

are

adequately

the

and

argument

court

presented

would

not

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.

DISMISSED

3