Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Oneil Markeith WATSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-06-08
Citations: 382 F. App'x 258
Docket Number: No. 09-8015
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Oneil Markeith WATSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 382
Pages: 258–258

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Oneil Markeith WATSON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-8015.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 26, 2010.
Decided: June 8, 2010.
Oneil Markeith Watson, Appellant Pro Se. D. Monique Broadnax, Special Assistant United States Attorney, James Ash-ford Metcalfe, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 appeal-ability 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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, 120 S.Ct. 1595. 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 materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.