United States of America v. Learley Reed Goodwin, a/k/a Goodie, a/k/a Lonnie Ross

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7062
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LEARLEY REED GOODWIN, a/k/a Goodie, a/k/a Lonnie Ross,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge.
(8:04-cr-00235-RWT-3; 8:13-cv-02944-RWT; 8:14-cv-02120-RWT)
Submitted: October 15, 2015 Decided: October 20, 2015
Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Learley Reed Goodwin, Appellant Pro Se. Adam Kenneth Ake,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Mara Zusman Greenberg,
Deborah A. Johnston, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Learley Reed Goodwin seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (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)
(2012). 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) (2012). 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
Goodwin 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 of 3 --

3
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --