United States v. Watkins ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                                UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 07-6880
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    DEJUAN ANDERKO WATKINS,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
    District Judge. (7:02-cr-00106-F; 7:05-cv-00019-F)
    Submitted:   August 23, 2007                 Decided:   August 30, 2007
    Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Dejuan Anderko Watkins, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr.,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    DeJuan Anderko Watkins seeks to appeal the district
    court’s orders and judgment denying relief on his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
    (2000)    motion   and     denying   his   motion   to   alter   or   amend   the
    judgment.      The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice
    or   judge    issues   a    certificate    of   appealability.        
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(1) (2000). 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 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 
    529 U.S. 473
    , 484
    (2000); Rose v. Lee, 
    252 F.3d 676
    , 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).                 We have
    independently reviewed the record and conclude Watkins 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
    the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    - 2 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-6880

Judges: Williams, Wilkins, Hamilton

Filed Date: 8/30/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024