United States v. Oneil Watson , 548 F. App'x 908 ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7456
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, Chief
District Judge. (2:08-cr-00045-RBS-FBS-1; 2:09-cv-00195-RBS-
FBS)
Submitted: December 19, 2013 Decided: December 24, 2013
Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Oneil Markeith Watson, Appellant Pro Se. D. Monique Broadnax,
Special 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 construing his motion to reopen his criminal
judgment as a successive 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2013)
motion, and dismissing it on that basis. 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 Watson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
2
In his informal brief, Watson seeks authorization to
file a second or successive § 2255 motion. In order to obtain
authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner
must assert claims based on either:
(1) newly discovered evidence that . . . would be
sufficient to establish by clear and convincing
evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have
found the movant guilty of the offense; or
(2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive
to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court,
that was previously unavailable.
28 U.S.C.A. § 2255(h) (West Supp. 2013). Watson’s claims do not
satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny
authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
3