United States v. Watson , 382 F. App'x 258 ( 2010 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-8015
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ONEIL MARKEITH WATSON,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District
Judge. (2:08-cr-00045-RBS-FBS-1; 2:09-cv-00195-RBS-FBS)
Submitted: May 26, 2010 Decided: June 8, 2010
Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Oneil Markeith Watson, Appellant Pro Se. D. Monique Broadnax,
Special Assistant United States Attorney, James Ashford
Metcalfe, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Oneil Markeith Watson seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West
Supp. 2009) motion. The order is not appealable unless a
circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (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 Watson has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny Watson’s motion for transcripts at the
Government’s expense, 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
2
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3