
    William L. COOK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION; Lisa Hollingsworth, Warden, Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 07-7278.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 10, 2007.
    Decided Dec. 27, 2007.
    William L. Cook, Appellant Pro Se. James A. Frederick, Goodell, Devries, Leech & Dann, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland; Allen F. Loucks, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
    Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

William L. Cook, a District of Columbia Code offender housed in a federal prison, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition. The order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); see Madley v. U.S. 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Cook has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 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  