Watson v. Daniels

Full title: TRAVIS L. WATSON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. DENNIS DANIELS, Respondent …

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Date published: Mar 21, 2023

No. 22-7372 (4th Cir. Mar. 21, 2023)

Opinion

22-7372

03-21-2023

TRAVIS L. WATSON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. DENNIS DANIELS, Respondent - Appellee

Travis L. Watson, Appellant Pro Se.

PER CURIAM:

UNPUBLISHED

Submitted: March 16, 2023

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Loretta C. Biggs, District Judge. (1:19-cv-00249-LCB-LPA)

Travis L. Watson, Appellant Pro Se.

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Travis L. Watson seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his various motions for relief from the district court's prior order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). See generally United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 400 &n.7 (4th Cir. 2015). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing 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. 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.

DISMISSED