United States v. Central Godbolt , 490 F. App'x 617 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 12-7379
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff – Appellee,
    v.
    CENTRAL A. GODBOLT,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:06-
    cr-00515-RWT-1)
    Submitted:   December 13, 2012            Decided:   December 18, 2012
    Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Central A. Godbolt, Appellant Pro Se. James Andrew Crowell, IV,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Central          A.    Godbolt     seeks     to      appeal    the     district
    court’s order denying relief on his 
    28 U.S.C.A. § 2255
     (West
    Supp.    2012)    motion.           The    order    is   not      appealable      unless    a
    circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
    
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(1)(B)              (2006).            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)
    (2006).    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 (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 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 Godbolt 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
    2
    contentions   are   adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before
    this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 12-7379

Citation Numbers: 490 F. App'x 617

Filed Date: 12/18/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014