Anthony Foster v. George Snyder, No. 08-8037 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8037 ANTHONY C. FOSTER, Petitioner Appellant, v. GEORGE SNYDER, Respondent Appellee, and U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION, Respondent. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:07-hc-02172-BO) Submitted: March 19, 2009 Decided: April 9, 2009 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony C. Foster, Appellant Pro Se. Steve R. Matheny, Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Anthony C. Foster, originally convicted and sentenced in the superior court of the District of Columbia, seeks to appeal the district court s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2006) petition Commission s appealable challenging revocation unless a of the his circuit United parole. justice States The or order judge Parole is issues not a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); see Madley v. United States Parole Comm n, 278 F.3d 1306, 1310 (D.C. Cir. 2002). 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). this standard by demonstrating that A prisoner satisfies reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Foster has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we appealability and dismiss the appeal. deny a certificate of 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
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.
