United States v. Marcus Watkins , 458 F. App'x 279 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 11-7428
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff – Appellee,
    v.
    MARCUS ANDREW WATKINS, a/k/a Andrew Sparkz,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Abingdon.    James P. Jones, District
    Judge. (1:08-cr-00024-JPJ-PMS-3; 1:11-cv-80358-JPJ)
    Submitted:   December 15, 2011            Decided:   December 20, 2011
    Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Marcus Andrew Watkins, Appellant Pro Se. Zachery T. Lee,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Marcus       Andrew       Watkins         seeks    to    appeal          the    district
    court’s    order       dismissing            his    
    28 U.S.C.A. § 2255
             (West        Supp.
    2011) motion without prejudice as premature.                                  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     Watkins          has    not      made     the       requisite          showing.
    Accordingly,          we    deny        a    certificate          of    appealability,                deny
    Watkins’       motion       to     vacate       the      district       court’s          order,        and
    dismiss the appeal.                We dispense with oral argument because the
    facts    and    legal       contentions            are    adequately         presented          in     the
    2
    materials   before   the   court   and   argument   would   not    aid   the
    decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-7428

Citation Numbers: 458 F. App'x 279

Judges: Davis, Duncan, Per Curiam, Wynn

Filed Date: 12/20/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/5/2023