US v. Hopeton Gooden, No. 14-6256 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on May 5, 2016.
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6256 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. HOPETON FRANK GOODEN, a/k/a Richard Doleson, a/k/a Michael Frank Burke, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:06-cr-00313-FL-1; 5:11-cv-00097-FL) Submitted: June 23, 2014 Decided: June 26, 2014 Before WILKINSON, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Hopeton Frank Gooden, Appellant Pro Se. Jason Harris Cowley, Assistant United States Attorney, Michael Gordon James, Shailika K. Shah, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Hopeton court s order Frank Gooden accepting the seeks to appeal recommendation of the the district magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and its order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. orders are issues not a appealable certificate § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). issue absent a unless of circuit justice appealability. or 28 judge U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right. a The 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 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 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 Gooden has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. dispense with oral argument because 2 the facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 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.
