US v. Watson
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
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)
December 21, 2006
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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 28 U.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. 28 U.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 See
conclude that Watson has not made the requisite showing. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003).
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. facts and legal We dispense with oral argument because the are adequately presented in the
- 2 -
- 3 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?