Chris Gooch v. State of North Carolina, No. 11-6985 (4th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Court Description: Unpublished opinion after submission on briefs: Dismissed

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6985 CHRIS GOOCH, Petitioner - Appellant, v. ALVIN W. KELLER, Correction, JR., Secretary of the Department of Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief District Judge. (5:10-hc-02164-FL) Submitted: November 10, 2011 Decided: November 23, 2011 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Chris Gooch, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Appellee. DelForge, III, Carolina, for Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Chris Gooch seeks to appeal the district court s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). issue absent a of appealability. U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right. 28 showing of the denial 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). 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 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. 529 U.S. at 484-85. and conclude that Slack, We have independently reviewed the record Gooch has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 2 before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.