Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07409/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07409-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kenneth Wayne Goode
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7409

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

KENNETH WAYNE GOODE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, 

District Judge. (5:06-cr-00081-BO-1; 5:12-cv-00345-BO)

Submitted: January 15, 2016 Decided: February 10, 2016

Before SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenneth Wayne Goode, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7409 Doc: 13 Filed: 02/10/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Kenneth Wayne Goode seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order treating his Fed. R. Crim. P. 36 motion as a successive 28 

U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, and dismissing it on that basis. 

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. See 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 

Goode has not made the requisite showing. See United States v. 

Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

Appeal: 15-7409 Doc: 13 Filed: 02/10/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

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

Appeal: 15-7409 Doc: 13 Filed: 02/10/2016 Pg: 3 of 3