UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                       No. 17-6892


JAMES WALLACE FOX,

                     Petitioner - Appellant,

              v.

BRICK TRIPP; US PAROLE COMMISSION,

                     Respondents - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:16-hc-02127-FL)


Submitted: November 28, 2017                                      Decided: January 5, 2018


Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


James Wallace Fox, Appellant Pro Se. Roberto Francisco Ramirez, Assistant United States
Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellees.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

       James Wallace Fox, a District of Columbia Code offender, seeks to appeal the

district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. The order is

not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012); Wilson v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 

, 351-52 (3d

Cir. 2011); Madley v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 

, 1308 (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) (2012). 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, 

, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v.

Cockrell, 

, 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. 

.

       We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Fox has not made the

requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to

proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                                 DISMISSED



                                              2