US v. Kenneth Goode, No. 15-7409 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7409 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KENNETH WAYNE GOODE, Defendant -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: January 15, 2016 Before SHEDD and Circuit Judge. AGEE, Circuit Decided: Judges, and February 10, 2016 HAMILTON, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. § 2255 (2012) motion, and dismissing it on that basis. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). issue absent “a prisoner the See 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not showing of the denial of a 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). district court satisfies this jurists would reasonable appealability. substantial constitutional right.” When of denies relief standard find by that on the merits, demonstrating the district a 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 ruling must 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 has not made the requisite showing. See United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. 2 We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 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.
