Keith Godwin v. Commonwealth of Virginia , 585 F. App'x 40 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 14-6924
    KEITH EARL GODWIN,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
    Judge. (2:14-cv-00186-RAJ-DEM)
    Submitted:   October 16, 2014             Decided:   October 22, 2014
    Before MOTZ, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Keith Earl Godwin, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Keith Earl Godwin seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order    dismissing       as    successive       his    
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
        (2012)
    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) (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).          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 petition 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 Godwin has not made the requisite showing.                          Accordingly, we
    deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in
    forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.                      We dispense with oral
    argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
    2
    presented in the materials before this court and argument would
    not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-6924

Citation Numbers: 585 F. App'x 40

Filed Date: 10/22/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023