Court Opinion

ID: 2658462
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-03-28 18:55:16.371198+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:48:23.380048
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 14-6046

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

YAHYA WATSON,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.   Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:07-cr-00396-CMH-1; 1:13-cv-01162-CMH)

Submitted:   March 25, 2014                 Decided:   March 28, 2014

Before GREGORY, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Yahya Watson, Appellant Pro Se.    David Sang Hak Lee, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Yahya      Watson   seeks      to    appeal    the    district      court’s

order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as successive

and unauthorized.         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 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