Court Opinion

ID: 1023549
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 23:39:44.90567+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:26:20.561138
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                               No. 07-6880

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                 Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

DEJUAN ANDERKO WATKINS,

                                                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (7:02-cr-00106-F; 7:05-cv-00019-F)

Submitted:   August 23, 2007                 Decided:   August 30, 2007

Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dejuan Anderko Watkins, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr.,
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              DeJuan Anderko Watkins seeks to appeal the district

court’s orders and judgment denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000)    motion   and     denying   his   motion   to   alter   or   amend   the

judgment.      The orders are 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 that

any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court

is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable.             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 Watkins has not made

the requisite showing.          Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis 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 -