Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Watson, 05-7178 (2005)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 05-7178 Visitors: 18
Filed: Nov. 30, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7178 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KEITH ALAN WATSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-99-23) Submitted: November 9, 2005 Decided: November 30, 2005 Before TRAXLER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opi
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7178 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KEITH ALAN WATSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-99-23) Submitted: November 9, 2005 Decided: November 30, 2005 Before TRAXLER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Keith Alan Watson, Appellant Pro Se. Fernando Groene, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Newport News, Virginia, Robert Joseph Seidel, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Keith Alan Watson seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing for lack of jurisdiction Watson’s motion filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), but characterized by the district court as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. This court previously has reviewed the district court’s dismissal of this order in its review of Watson’s appeal from the district court’s dismissal of the underlying § 2555 motion. See United States v. Watson, No. 04-7455 (4th Cir. Aug. 30, 2005) (unpublished). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability because Watson has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, and we dismiss this appeal as duplicative. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED - 2 -
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer