Tervin Goodman v. Warden of Broad River Correctional Institution

UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

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 of 2 --