Tervin Goodman v. Warden of Broad River CI

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6149 Doc: 12 Filed: 09/30/2025 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-6149 TERVIN GOODMAN, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN OF BROAD RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (2:23-cv-00206-RMG) Submitted: March 27, 2025 Decided: September 30, 2025 Before THACKER and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Elizabeth Anne Franklin-Best, ELIZABETH FRANKLIN-BEST, P.C., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-6149 Doc: 12 Filed: 09/30/2025 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Tervin Goodman seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely Goodman’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. See Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 148 & n.9 (2012) (explaining that § 2254 petitions are subject to one-year statute of limitations, running from latest of four commencement dates enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). 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). When, as here, the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez, 565 U.S. at 140-41 (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Goodman has not made the requisite showing. He fails to demonstrate that the district court’s finding that his § 2254 petition was untimely was debatable or wrong. 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2