United States v. Marcus Watkins , 458 F. App'x 279 ( 2011 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-7428
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
MARCUS ANDREW WATKINS, a/k/a Andrew Sparkz,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, District
Judge. (1:08-cr-00024-JPJ-PMS-3; 1:11-cv-80358-JPJ)
Submitted: December 15, 2011 Decided: December 20, 2011
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marcus Andrew Watkins, Appellant Pro Se. Zachery T. Lee,
Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Marcus Andrew Watkins seeks to appeal the district
court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.
2011) motion without prejudice as premature. The order is not
appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006).
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). 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, 529 U.S. 473, 484
(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 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 motion states a debatable
claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S.
at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and
conclude that Watkins has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny
Watkins’ motion to vacate the district court’s order, and
dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
2
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3