Opinion
No. 16-7228
09-12-2019
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JOSIAH TIONDRA WATSON, Defendant - Appellant.
Josiah Tiondra Watson, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Senior District Judge. (2:10-cr-00200-RBS-DEM-2; 2:16-cv-00397-RBS) Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and RUSHING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Josiah Tiondra Watson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Josiah Tiondra Watson seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) (2012). 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 Watson has not made the requisite showing. 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
Following our decision in United States v. Mathis, 932 F.3d 242 (4th Cir. 2019), reasonable jurists would not find debatable or wrong the district court's rejection of Watson's argument that Hobbs Act robbery does not qualify as a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A) (2012). --------
DISMISSED