Keith Godwin v. Harold Clarke

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999142431-2] Originating case number: 2:10-cv-00491-RAJ-DEM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999192759]. Mailed to: Godwin. [13-6946]

Appeal: 13-6946

Doc: 11

Filed: 09/13/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6946

KEITH E. GODWIN, a/k/a Keith E. Goodwin,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of
Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (2:10-cv-00491-RAJ-DEM)

Submitted:

September 6, 2013

Decided:

September 13, 2013

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Keith Earl Godwin, Appellant Pro Se.
Richard Carson Vorhis,
Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-6946

Doc: 11

Filed: 09/13/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Keith Earl Godwin seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3) motion for relief
from the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254
(2006) petition.
justice

or

28 U.S.C.

The order is not appealable unless a circuit

judge

issues

§ 2253(c)(1)(A)

issue

absent

constitutional

“a

certificate

(2006);

363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004).
not

a

v.

appealability.

Angelone,

369

F.3d

A certificate of appealability will

substantial

right.”

Reid

of

28

showing

U.S.C.

of

the

denial

§ 2253(c)(2).

of

When

a

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 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.
2

We dispense with oral

Appeal: 13-6946

Doc: 11

Filed: 09/13/2013

Pg: 3 of 3

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

3