Court Opinion

ID: 1009361
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 19:54:47.619665+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:03.281994
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                      UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                          FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                               No. 02-7583

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                Plaintiff - Appellee,

             versus

FLOYD SAMUEL WATSON, a/k/a Lloyd Williams,
a/k/a Money, a/k/a A.J.,

                                               Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge.
(CR-93-81-2, CA-02-553-2)

Submitted:    December 16, 2002           Decided:     December 23, 2002

Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Floyd Samuel Watson, Appellant Pro Se.       Michael R. Smythers,
Assistant United States Attorney, William David Muhr, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Floyd Samuel Watson seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000).

An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255

proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate

of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2000). When, as here,

a district court dismisses a § 2255 motion solely on procedural

grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the

movant can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason would find

it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the

denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason

would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in

its procedural ruling.’”      Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.

2001) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).                We

have reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the

district court that Watson has not made the requisite showing. See

United States v. Watson, Nos. CR-98-81-2; CA-02-553-2 (E.D. Va.

Aug. 30, 2002). Accordingly, we 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