Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Watkins, 4th Cir. (2009)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    9 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case. Telisha Rachette Watkins sought to appeal the district court's denial of her 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 motion. A certificate of appealability is required to appeal the denial but will not be issued unless the prisoner shows that reasonable jurists would find the constitutional claims debatable. The Court of Appeals independently reviewed the record and concluded that Watkins did not make the requisite showing. It therefore denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2009-06-10 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 08-8282

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case. Telisha Rachette Watkins sought to appeal the district court's denial of her 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 motion. A certificate of appealability is required to appeal the denial but will not be issued unless the prisoner shows that reasonable jurists would find the constitutional claims debatable. The Court of Appeals independently reviewed the record and concluded that Watkins did not make the requisite showing. It therefore denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    9 views2 pages

    United States v. Watkins, 4th Cir. (2009)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case. Telisha Rachette Watkins sought to appeal the district court's denial of her 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 motion. A certificate of appealability is required to appeal the denial but will not be issued unless the prisoner shows that reasonable jurists would find the constitutional claims debatable. The Court of Appeals independently reviewed the record and concluded that Watkins did not make the requisite showing. It therefore denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 08-8282

    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)

    Submitted:

    May 29, 2009

    Decided:

    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
    courts order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 (West
    Supp.

    2008)

    motion.

    The

    order

    is

    not

    appealable

    unless

    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

    right.

    satisfies

    reasonable

    jurists

    constitutional

    28

    this
    would

    claims

    by

    U.S.C.

    2253(c)(2)

    standard
    find
    the

    by

    that

    demonstrating

    any

    district

    (2006).

    assessment

    court

    is

    A
    that

    of

    the

    debatable

    or

    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

    certificate
    dispense

    of

    with

    requisite

    showing.

    appealability
    oral

    argument

    and

    Accordingly,
    dismiss

    because

    the

    the

    we

    deny

    appeal.

    facts

    and

    a
    We

    legal

    contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the


    court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

    DISMISSED

    You might also like