United States v. Watson ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 03-6598
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    KENNETH AVERY WATSON,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees,
    District Judge. (CR-98-66, CA-00-184-5-1-V)
    Submitted:   June 12, 2003                 Decided:   June 20, 2003
    Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Kenneth Avery Watson, Appellant Pro Se. Gretchen C.F. Shappert,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Kenneth Avery Watson seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order denying relief on his motion filed under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
    (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255
    proceeding 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 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, 
    123 S. Ct. 1029
    , 1040 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 
    529 U.S. 473
    , 484 (2000);
    Rose v. Lee, 
    252 F.3d 676
    , 683 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 
    534 U.S. 941
     (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
    that Watson 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
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 03-6598

Filed Date: 6/20/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021