Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Goodwin v. Koppel, 4th Cir. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a court case in which Kamal Dorchy Goodwin appealed the district court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. A three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal and denied Goodwin's request for a certificate of appealability. The panel concluded that Goodwin did not make the requisite showing that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2007-06-22 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 07-6471

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document summarizes a court case in which Kamal Dorchy Goodwin appealed the district court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. A three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal and denied Goodwin's request for a certificate of appealability. The panel concluded that Goodwin did not make the requisite showing that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    5 views2 pages

    Goodwin v. Koppel, 4th Cir. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case in which Kamal Dorchy Goodwin appealed the district court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. A three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal and denied Goodwin's request for a certificate of appealability. The panel concluded that Goodwin did not make the requisite showing that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 07-6471

    KAMAL DORCHY GOODWIN,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    ROBERT KOPPEL, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR
    THE STATE OF MARYLAND,
    Respondents - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Greenbelt.
    Peter J. Messitte, District Judge.
    (8:06-cv-03067-PJM)

    Submitted: June 15, 2007

    Decided:

    June 22, 2007

    Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Kamal Dorchy Goodwin, Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, OFFICE
    OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for
    Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Kamal Dorchy Goodwin seeks to appeal the district courts
    order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. 2254 (2000) petition and
    requests the appointment of counsel on appeal.

    An order denying

    2254 relief is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge


    issues a certificate of appealability.
    (2000).

    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1)

    A certificate of appealability will not issue absent a

    substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.


    U.S.C. 2253(c)(2) (2000).
    demonstrating

    that

    28

    A prisoner satisfies this standard by

    reasonable

    jurists

    would

    find

    that

    any

    assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is


    debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by
    the district court is likewise debatable.

    Miller-El v. Cockrell,

    537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484
    (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).

    We have

    independently reviewed the record and conclude that Goodwin has not
    made the requisite showing.

    Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

    appealability, deny the request for the appointment of counsel and


    dismiss the appeal.
    facts

    and

    materials

    legal
    before

    We dispense with oral argument because the

    contentions
    the

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in

    the

    aid

    the

    decisional process.

    DISMISSED

    - 2 -

    You might also like