US v. Watson (4th Cir. 2007)

Federal Circuits, 4th Cir. (January 05, 2007)

Docket number: 06-7627

Not Published
Permanent Link: http://vlex.com/vid/us-v-watson-25641901
Id. vLex: VLEX-25641901

Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)

Document language

Request manual translation

Search in this document

Document options

Citations:

Loading article preview... cerrar

U.S. Supreme Court - Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Cir. - John Hardy Rose, Petitioner-Appellant, v. R. C. Lee, Warden, Central Prison, Raleigh, North Carolina, Respondent-Appellee. John Hardy Rose, Petitioner-Appellee, v. R. C. Lee, Warden, Central Prison, Raleigh, North Carolina, Respondent-Appellant., 252 F.3d 676 (4th Cir. 2001) Petitioner-Appellant, v. R. C. Lee, Warden, Central Prison, Raleigh, North Carolina, Respondent-Appellee. John Hardy Rose, Petitioner-Appellee, v. R. C. Lee, Warden, Central Prison, Raleigh, North Carolina, Respondent-Appellant.

See other documents that cite the same legislation

Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-7627

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

CURTIS LEE WATSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District

Judge. (1:88-cr-00201-JCC; 1:06-cv-00883-LMB)

Submitted: December 21, 2006 Decided: January 5, 2007

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Curtis Lee Watson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Curtis Lee Watson seeks to appeal the district court's order construing his petition for Error Coram Nobis as a motion filed pursuant to 28U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction as an unauthorized successive motion, as well as its order denying Watson's motion filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.

P. 59(e). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000).

When, as here, a district court dismisses a § 2255 motion solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the petitioner can demonstrate both "(1) `that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right' and (2) `that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.'" Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir. 2001) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.

473, 484 (2000)). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Watson has not made the requisite showing. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003).

Accordingly, we deny 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED