Lance Goldman v. George Kenworthy

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:10-hc-02266-BO Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998824513]. Mailed to: Lance Adam Goldman. [11-7712]

Appeal: 11-7712

Document: 9

Date Filed: 04/03/2012

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7712

LANCE ADAM GOLDMAN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
GEORGE KENWORTHY,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:10-hc-02266-BO)

Submitted:

March 29, 2012

Decided:

April 3, 2012

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lance Adam Goldman, Appellant Pro Se.
Clarence Joe DelForge,
III, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-7712

Document: 9

Date Filed: 04/03/2012

Page: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Lance

Adam

Goldman

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)
petition.
or

judge

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006).
issue

absent

“a

appealability.

28

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

of

showing

of

the

denial

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006).

of

a

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

Cockrell,

(2000);

(2003).

see

Miller-El

v.

537

U.S.

322,

336-38

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 Goldman has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
We

dispense

with

oral

argument

2

because

the

facts

and

legal

Appeal: 11-7712

Document: 9

Date Filed: 04/03/2012

Page: 3 of 3

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

DISMISSED

3