United States v. Gooch

172 F. App'x 32
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedMarch 3, 2006
Docket05-7565
StatusUnpublished

This text of 172 F. App'x 32 (United States v. Gooch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Gooch, 172 F. App'x 32 (4th Cir. 2006).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7565

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

EDNA GOOCH,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CR-02-641; CA-03-1233)

Submitted: February 23, 2006 Decided: March 3, 2006

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edna Gooch, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:

Edna Gooch seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on her motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000).

An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255

proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate

of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of

appealability will not issue for claims addressed by the district

court on the merits absent “a substantial showing of the denial of

a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Gooch has not

made the requisite showing. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S.

322, 336 (2003). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

- 2 -

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Miller-El v. Cockrell
537 U.S. 322 (Supreme Court, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
172 F. App'x 32, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-gooch-ca4-2006.