Garris v. Parole Commission, No. 05-7318 (4th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7318 DAVID ISAIAH GARRIS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-05-481-8-AW) Submitted: February 23, 2006 Decided: March 1, 2006 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Isaiah Garris, Appellant Pro Se. Ariana Wright Arnold, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). 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(c), and while a parole determination claim does not attack the original conviction or sentence, original state process). issue absent a it nevertheless out of the A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right. arises showing of the denial 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). of a A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that constitutional the claims district is court s debatable or assessment wrong and of his that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court also are debatable or wrong. 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 Garris has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we appealability and dismiss the appeal. - 2 - deny a certificate of 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 -
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
