Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-06256/USCOURTS-ca4-14-06256-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 14-6256

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

HOPETON FRANK GOODEN, a/k/a Richard Doleson, a/k/a Michael 

Frank Burke, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, 

District Judge. (5:06-cr-00313-FL-1; 5:11-cv-00097-FL) 

Submitted: June 23, 2014 Decided: June 26, 2014 

Before WILKINSON, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Hopeton Frank Gooden, Appellant Pro Se. Jason Harris Cowley, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Michael Gordon James, Shailika 

K. Shah, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

Certiorari granted by Supreme Court, June 30, 2015 

Vacated and Remanded by Supreme Court, June 30, 2015

Appeal: 14-6256 Doc: 7 Filed: 06/26/2014 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Hopeton Frank Gooden seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate 

judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion

and its order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. The 

orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (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 motion 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 Gooden has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

Appeal: 14-6256 Doc: 7 Filed: 06/26/2014 Pg: 2 of 3
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 14-6256 Doc: 7 Filed: 06/26/2014 Pg: 3 of 3