Court Opinion

ID: 9381467
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-22 21:01:17.277557+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:32.783644
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7372      Doc: 12         Filed: 03/21/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-7372

        TRAVIS L. WATSON,

                            Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        DENNIS DANIELS,

                            Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
        Greensboro. Loretta C. Biggs, District Judge. (1:19-cv-00249-LCB-LPA)

        Submitted: March 16, 2023                                         Decided: March 21, 2023

        Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Travis L. Watson, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7372         Doc: 12       Filed: 03/21/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Travis L. Watson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his various

        motions for relief from the district court’s prior order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.

        § 2254 petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

        certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). See generally United States v.

        McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 400 & n.7 (4th Cir. 2015). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this

        standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment

        of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17

        (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must

        demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition

        states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S.

        134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

               We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Watson has not made

        the requisite showing. 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 this court and argument would not aid the

        decisional process.

                                                                                        DISMISSED

                                                      2