US v. James Gooslin

Filing 920100506

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7383

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JAMES GOOSLIN, a/k/a Jimmy, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge. (2:05-cr-00180; 2:08-cv-00001)

Submitted:

March 22, 2010

Decided:

May 6, 2010

Before MICHAEL, * DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Gooslin, Appellant Pro Se. Erik S. Goes, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Judge Michael was a member of the original panel but did not participate in this decision. This opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).

*

PER CURIAM: James Gooslin seeks to appeal the district court's

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying motion. judge relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009)

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2006). issue absent "a

A certificate of appealability will not showing U.S.C. standard find the that of the denial of a A that the or

substantial 28

constitutional prisoner reasonable

right." this would by

§ 2253(c)(2) by any

(2006).

satisfies jurists

demonstrating assessment is of

constitutional

claims

district

court

debatable

wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S.

322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Gooslin has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Gooslin's

motion for a copy of the Government's motion in limine, deny a certificate dispense of appealability, oral argument and dismiss the the appeal. and We legal

with

because

facts

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2