Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07855/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07855-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-7855

GREGORY WAYNE WATKINS, 

 Petitioner - Appellant, 

 v. 

ANTHONY HATHAWAY, III, 

 Respondent - Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, 

Senior District Judge. (5:08-hc-02049-H) 

Submitted: January 14, 2010 Decided: January 21, 2010 

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Gregory Wayne Watkins, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, 

III, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

Appeal: 09-7855 Doc: 15 Filed: 01/21/2010 Pg: 1 of 2
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Gregory Wayne Watkins seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) 

petition. 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). 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 that Watkins has 

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Watkins’s 

motion for 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

Appeal: 09-7855 Doc: 15 Filed: 01/21/2010 Pg: 2 of 2