Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rahsaan Jamar WATKINS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-08-30
Citations: 107 F. App'x 374
Docket Number: No. 04-6212
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Rahsaan Jamar WATKINS, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 107
Pages: 374–375

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Rahsaan Jamar WATKINS, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 04-6212.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 20, 2004.
Decided Aug. 30, 2004.
Fred Warren Bennett, Bennett & Lawlor, LLP, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Kasey Warner, United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Rahsaan Jamar Watkins, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court's order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying Watkins' 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Watkins has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Watkins' 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