Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kenneth Wayne GOODE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-05-23
Citations: 521 F. App'x 188
Docket Number: No. 13-6468
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kenneth Wayne GOODE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 521
Pages: 188–189

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kenneth Wayne GOODE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-6468.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 8, 2013.
Decided: May 23, 2013.
Kenneth Wayne Goode, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2012) motion, and dismissing it on that basis. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). 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) (2006). 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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, 120 S.Ct. 1595.
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 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.