Court Opinion

ID: 1016714
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 21:53:34.813658+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:41:21.960522
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 05-6499

ARTHUR DALE WATKINS,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

K. BASSETT, Warden,

                                            Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District
Judge. (CA-04-375-7)

Submitted:   July 14, 2005                 Decided:   July 26, 2005

Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Arthur Dale Watkins, Appellant Pro Se. John H. McLees, Jr., OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

              Arthur Dale Watkins seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition.                  The

order is not appealable 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 both that the

district   court’s     assessment    of   the      constitutional    claims    is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by

the district court are also debatable or wrong.                   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   to    amend   and   supplement      his    informal   brief,   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

                                    - 2 -