William Q. Terry v. KUMA DEEBOO, Warden, F.C.I. Gilmer; U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION

UNPUBLISHED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 Decided: May 31, 2012
Before MOTZ and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
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)].”). 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) (2006). 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); see Miller–El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336–38
(2003). When the district court denies relief on 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. Accordingly, we

-- 2 of 3 --

3
deny Terry’s motion for 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

-- 3 of 3 --