US v. Kenneth Goode, No. 13-6468 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6468 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KENNETH WAYNE GOODE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:06-cr-00081-BO-1; 5:12-cv-00345-BO) Submitted: May 8, 2013 Before SHEDD and Circuit Judge. AGEE, Decided: Circuit Judges, and May 23, 2013 HAMILTON, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kenneth Wayne Goode, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kenneth Wayne Goode seeks to appeal the district court s order treating his Fed. R. Crim. P. 36 motion as a successive 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 dismissing it on that basis. a circuit justice appealability. or (West Supp. 2012) motion, and The order is not appealable unless judge issues a certificate 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). of 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 both on 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 States v. has not made Winestock, 340 the requisite F.3d 200, showing. 208 (4th See United Cir. 2003). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 2 We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials 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.
