Court Opinion

ID: 1035729
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-31 00:00:54.737657+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:37:57.932431
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 13-6258

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

BRYAN CORNELIUS WATSON,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.   W. Earl Britt, Senior
District Judge. (5:10-cr-00294-BR-2; 5:11-cv-00640-BR)

Submitted:   June 18, 2013                 Decided:   July 30, 2013

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bryan Cornelius Watson, Appellant Pro Se.    Jennifer P. May-
Parker,   Assistant  United States Attorney,   Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Bryan Cornelius Watson seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West

Supp.    2013)    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)     (2006).            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)

(2006).    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 a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.                          We

dispense     with     oral    argument    because      the       facts   and    legal

                                          2
contentions   are   adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                               DISMISSED

                                   3