US v. Kelvin Goode

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to transfer [999165954-2], updating certificate of appealability status Originating case number: 3:07-cr-00298-REP-1,3:13-cv-00109-REP Copies to all parties and the district court. [999203151]. Mailed to: Kelvin Goode. [13-7038]

Appeal: 13-7038

Doc: 10

Filed: 09/27/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7038

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
KELVIN DEWITT GOODE,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:07-cr-00298-REP-1; 3:13-cv-00109-REP)

Submitted:

September 24, 2013

Before NIEMEYER and
Senior Circuit Judge.

THACKER,

Decided:

Circuit

September 27, 2013

Judges,

and

HAMILTON,

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kelvin Dewitt Goode, Appellant Pro Se.
Michael Calvin Moore,
Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-7038

Doc: 10

Filed: 09/27/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Kelvin

Dewitt

Goode

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

court’s order dismissing as successive his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255
(West Supp. 2013) motion.

The order is not appealable unless a

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
28

U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)(B)

(2006).

A

certificate

of

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right.”
(2006).

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)

When the district court denies relief on the merits, a

prisoner

satisfies

this

jurists

would

reasonable

standard
find

by

that

demonstrating

the

district

that

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).
denies

relief

demonstrate

on

both

procedural

that

the

When the district court

grounds,

dispositive

the

prisoner

procedural

must

ruling

is

debatable, and that the motion 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 Goode has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

We

deny Goode’s motion seeking transfer to a different prison.

We

dispense

with

oral

argument

because

2

the

facts

and

legal

Appeal: 13-7038

Doc: 10

contentions

are

Filed: 09/27/2013

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3