Court Opinion

ID: 9411148
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-25 21:01:26.042221+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:05.135037
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6761      Doc: 12         Filed: 07/24/2023      Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                                UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-6761

        VERNON GOODWIN,

                             Petitioner - Appellant,

                      v.

        KENNETH NELSEN, Warden of Broad River Correctional Institution,

                             Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.
        Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (4:21-cv-02051-TMC)

        Submitted: July 20, 2023                                            Decided: July 24, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Elizabeth Anne Franklin-Best, ELIZABETH FRANKLIN-BEST, P.C., Columbia, South
        Carolina, for Appellant.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6761         Doc: 12       Filed: 07/24/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Vernon Goodwin seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the

        recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Goodwin’s counseled 28

        U.S.C. § 2254 petition. 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). 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 could find the district court’s

        assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S.

        100, 115-17 (2017). 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. Gonzalez v.

        Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

               We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Goodwin has not

        made the requisite showing. 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

                                                      2