Filed: May 19, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6230 THEODORE WATKINS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WARDEN, Nottoway Correctional Center, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge. (CA-03-1164) Submitted: May 13, 2004 Decided: May 19, 2004 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Theodore Watkins,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6230 THEODORE WATKINS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WARDEN, Nottoway Correctional Center, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge. (CA-03-1164) Submitted: May 13, 2004 Decided: May 19, 2004 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Theodore Watkins, A..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6230
THEODORE WATKINS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
WARDEN, Nottoway Correctional Center,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief
District Judge. (CA-03-1164)
Submitted: May 13, 2004 Decided: May 19, 2004
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Theodore Watkins, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Theodore Watkins seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying as untimely his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
(2000). The order is appealable only if a circuit justice or judge
issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)
(2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by
demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find his constitutional
claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by
the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v.
Cockrell,
537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel,
529 U.S.
473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee,
252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Watkins has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny Watkins’ motion for 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
the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 2 -