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: 2016-02-10
Citations: 633 F. App'x 117
Docket Number: No. 15-7409
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: 633
Pages: 117–118

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kenneth Wayne GOODE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-7409.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 15, 2016.
Decided: Feb. 10, 2016.
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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. § 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, 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, 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.