
    Nathaniel Adel STEWART-BEY, a/k/a Nathaniel Adel Stewart, Petitioner—Appellant, v. UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION; B.A. Bledsoe, Respondents—Appellees.
    No. 04-7750.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted April 14, 2005.
    Decided April 19, 2005.
    Nathaniel Adel Stewart-Bey, Appellant pro se. John Leslie Brownlee, United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellees.
    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM.

Nathaniel Adel Stewarb-Bey, convicted and sentenced in the superior court of the District of Columbia and now incarcerated in Virginia, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000), challenging the revocation of his parole by the United States Parole Commission. 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). 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 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, 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 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Stewart-Bey 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  