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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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