US v. Telisha Watkins
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TELISHA RACHETTE WATKINS, a/k/a Wendy, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:06-cr-00043-FDW-2; 3:08-cv-00426-FDW)
May 29, 2009
June 10, 2009
Before TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Telisha Rachette Watkins, Appellant Pro Se. Donald David Gast, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina; Karen S. Marston, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Telisha Rachette Watkins seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2008) motion. The order is not appealable unless a
circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability
will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional prisoner reasonable right." this would by 28 U.S.C. standard find the that § 2253(c)(2) by any (2006). A that the or
demonstrating assessment is of
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 that Watkins has not made the of requisite showing. and Accordingly, dismiss the the we deny a We legal
appealability oral argument
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
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?