Court Opinion

ID: 4164465
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-04-28 19:04:01.693465+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:46:53.187734
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 17-6195

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

KASHUN WATSON,

                    Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:10-cr-00941-RBH-9; 4:15-cv-03370-
RBH)

Submitted: April 25, 2017                                         Decided: April 28, 2017

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kashun Watson, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United
States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, Robert Frank Daley, Jr., Assistant United
States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

       Kashun Watson seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely

his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) (2012). 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 (2000); see Miller-El v.

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (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.

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

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Watson’s 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 this court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                               DISMISSED

                                             2