United States v. Henderson ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 05-6850
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    TOMMY HENDERSON, a/k/a Thomas A. Henderson,
    a/k/a Tommie Henderson, a/k/a Tom Lamont
    Henderson, a/k/a Tommy Lemont Henderson, a/k/a
    Tommy Lamont Henderson,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Charleston.   Patrick Michael Duffy, District
    Judge. (CR-02-826; CA-04-23224-2)
    Submitted:   February 23, 2006             Decided:   March 1, 2006
    Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Tommy Henderson, Appellant Pro Se. Lee Ellis Berlinsky, OFFICE OF
    THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Tommy Henderson seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order denying relief on his motion filed under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
    (2000).     The order is not appealable 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
    absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
    right.”     
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(2) (2000).       A prisoner satisfies this
    standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that
    the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is
    debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the
    district court are also debatable or wrong.              See 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
    Henderson 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 contentions are
    adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
    would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    - 2 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-6850

Filed Date: 3/1/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021