Court Opinion

ID: 2744661
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-10-22 19:03:13.388672+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:10:11.675019
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 14-6924

KEITH EARL GODWIN,

                       Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,

                       Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (2:14-cv-00186-RAJ-DEM)

Submitted:   October 16, 2014             Decided:   October 22, 2014

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Keith Earl Godwin, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

              Keith Earl Godwin seeks to appeal the district court’s

order    dismissing       as    successive       his    28    U.S.C.      § 2254    (2012)

petition.      The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice

or    judge   issues      a    certificate       of    appealability.         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).          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 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 Godwin has not made the requisite showing.                          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

                                             2
presented in the materials before this court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

                                                      DISMISSED

                                  3