Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Watson, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views3 pages
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case. Oneil Markeith Watson sought to appeal the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 motion. The appellate court independently reviewed the record and concluded that Watson did not make the requisite showing to obtain a certificate of appealability, which is required to appeal the denial of a § 2255 motion. As a result, the appellate court denied Watson's motion for transcripts, denied a certificate of appealability, and dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2010-06-08 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 09-8015

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case. Oneil Markeith Watson sought to appeal the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 motion. The appellate court independently reviewed the record and concluded that Watson did not make the requisite showing to obtain a certificate of appealability, which is required to appeal the denial of a § 2255 motion. As a result, the appellate court denied Watson's motion for transcripts, denied a certificate of appealability, and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    5 views3 pages

    United States v. Watson, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case. Oneil Markeith Watson sought to appeal the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 motion. The appellate court independently reviewed the record and concluded that Watson did not make the requisite showing to obtain a certificate of appealability, which is required to appeal the denial of a § 2255 motion. As a result, the appellate court denied Watson's motion for transcripts, denied a certificate of appealability, and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED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

    courts order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 (West


    Supp.

    2009)

    motion.

    The

    order

    is

    not

    appealable

    unless

    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 courts assessment of the constitutional


    claims is debatable or wrong.

    Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

    484

    Cockrell,

    (2000);

    (2003).

    see

    Miller-El

    v.

    537

    U.S.

    322,

    336-38

    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.
    529 U.S. at 484-85.

    Slack,

    We have independently reviewed the record

    and conclude that Watson has not made the requisite showing.
    Accordingly,

    we

    deny

    Watsons

    motion

    for

    transcripts

    at

    the

    Governments expense, deny a certificate of appealability, and


    dismiss the appeal.
    facts

    and

    legal

    We dispense with oral argument because the

    contentions

    are

    adequately

    presented

    in

    the

    materials

    before

    the

    court

    and

    argument

    would

    not

    aid

    the

    decisional process.
    DISMISSED

    You might also like