Keith Godwin v. Harold Clarke , 683 F. App'x 265 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 17-6140
    KEITH EARL GODWIN,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    HAROLD W. CLARKE,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
    Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:16-cv-00684-RAJ-DEM)
    Submitted: March 30, 2017                                         Decided: April 4, 2017
    Before TRAXLER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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) (2012). 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 presented in the
    materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 17-6140

Citation Numbers: 683 F. App'x 265

Filed Date: 4/4/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023