US v. James Goff
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:11-cr-00025-GEC-1,1:14-cv-80744-GEC-RSB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999778152]. Mailed to: James Goff. [15-7173]
Appeal: 15-7173
Doc: 17
Filed: 03/21/2016
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7173
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMES EDWARD GOFF,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Abingdon.
Glen E. Conrad, Chief
District Judge. (1:11-cr-00025-GEC-1; 1:14-cv-80744-GEC-RSB)
Submitted:
March 17, 2016
Decided:
March 21, 2016
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Edward Goff, Appellant Pro Se. Zachary T. Lee, Assistant
United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 15-7173
Doc: 17
Filed: 03/21/2016
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
James
Edward
Goff
seeks
to
appeal
the
district
court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.
The
order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues
a
certificate
(2012).
of
appealability.
28
U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1)(B)
A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).
relief
on
the
merits,
demonstrating
district
that
court’s
debatable
or
a
When the district court denies
prisoner
reasonable
assessment
wrong.
satisfies
jurists
would
of
the
v.
McDaniel,
Slack
this
standard
find
U.S.
that
the
claims
constitutional
529
by
is
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
motion
states
claim of the denial of a constitutional right.
a
debatable
Slack, 529 U.S.
at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Goff has not made the requisite showing.
certificate
dispense
of
with
appealability
oral
argument
and
dismiss
because
2
Accordingly, we deny a
the
the
appeal.
facts
and
We
legal
Appeal: 15-7173
Doc: 17
contentions
are
Filed: 03/21/2016
adequately
Pg: 3 of 3
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?