US v. Oneil Watson, No. 13-7456 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7456 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ONEIL MARKEITH WATSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief District Judge. (2:08-cr-00045-RBS-FBS-1; 2:09-cv-00195-RBSFBS) Submitted: December 19, 2013 Decided: December 24, 2013 Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Oneil Markeith Watson, Appellant Pro Se. D. Monique Broadnax, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Oneil court s order Markeith Watson construing his seeks to the district to motion appeal reopen his criminal judgment as a successive 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2013) motion, and dismissing it on that basis. appealable unless a circuit certificate of appealability. A certificate of justice The order is not or judge issues a 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). relief on the demonstrating district merits, that court s debatable or a When the district court denies prisoner reasonable assessment wrong. Slack satisfies jurists this would of the v. McDaniel, standard find U.S. that the claims constitutional 529 by is 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 claim of the denial of a constitutional right. a debatable 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. 2 In his informal brief, Watson seeks authorization to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on either: (1) newly discovered evidence that . . . would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense; or (2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255(h) (West Supp. 2013). satisfy either of these Watson s claims do not criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. DISMISSED 3