Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-08015/USCOURTS-ca4-09-08015-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Oneil Markeith Watson
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 09-8015 Doc: 13 Filed: 06/08/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

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 

Appeal: 09-8015 Doc: 13 Filed: 06/08/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 09-8015 Doc: 13 Filed: 06/08/2010 Pg: 3 of 3