Nathaniel Goode v. David Mitchell
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999573799-2]; denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999604906-2] Originating case number: 1:15-cv-00022-FDW Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999627197]. Mailed to: Nathaniel Goode LANESBORO CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION P. O. Box 280 Polkton, NC 28135-0000. [15-6631]
Appeal: 15-6631
Doc: 10
Filed: 07/24/2015
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6631
NATHANIEL GOODE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
DAVID MITCHELL, Superintendent Lanesboro Correctional,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Frank D. Whitney, Chief
District Judge. (1:15-cv-00022-FDW)
Submitted:
July 21, 2015
Decided:
July 24, 2015
Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Nathaniel Goode, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 15-6631
Doc: 10
Filed: 07/24/2015
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Nathaniel Goode seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition as an unauthorized
successive petition.
The order is not appealable unless a circuit
justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).
issue
absent
“a
A certificate of appealability will not
substantial
constitutional right.”
28 U.S.C.
showing
of
the
denial
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).
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
(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).
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
Goode has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny a
certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, deny Goode’s motion to appoint counsel, and dismiss the
appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
2
Appeal: 15-6631
Doc: 10
Filed: 07/24/2015
Pg: 3 of 3
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?