Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06426/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06426-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Keith D. Goodman
Appellant
Eddie Pearson
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6426

KEITH D. GOODMAN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

EDDIE PEARSON, Warden, Greensville Corr. Center,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District 

Judge. (1:14-cv-01335-GBL-MSN)

Submitted: July 28, 2016 Decided: August 2, 2016

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, SHEDD, Circuit Judge, and DAVIS, 

Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Keith D. Goodman, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson Vorhis, Senior 

Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6426 Doc: 15 Filed: 08/02/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Keith D. Goodman seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition.1 The order 

is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. See 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 

 1 Although Goodman argues that a certificate of appealability

is not required and claims that the district court erred in 

refusing to consider his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012), 

his argument is squarely foreclosed by our recent decision in In 

re Wright, __ F.3d __, __, No. 15-281, 2016 WL 3409851, *7 (4th 

Cir. June 21, 2016) (holding that “when a prisoner being held 

pursuant to the judgment of a State court files a habeas petition 

claiming the execution of his sentence is in violation of the 

Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, the more 

specific § 2254 and all associated statutory requirements shall 

apply, regardless of the statutory label the prisoner chooses to 

give his petition” (alterations and citation omitted)).

Appeal: 16-6426 Doc: 15 Filed: 08/02/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

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 

Goodman has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

Goodman’s motions2 for 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 Goodman has filed a motion for a certificate of 

appealability in this court. He also filed a motion for 

reconsideration of the district court’s denial of a certificate of 

appealability, which the district court transferred to this court 

and we now construe as a motion for a certificate of appealability.

Appeal: 16-6426 Doc: 15 Filed: 08/02/2016 Pg: 3 of 3