United States v. Hendrickson , 195 F. App'x 136 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 06-6157
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    VANCE CHEYNEY HENDRICKSON,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.      Malcolm J. Howard,
    District Judge. (4:01-cr-00042-H; 4:04-cv-00079-H)
    Submitted:   July 31, 2006                 Decided:   August 18, 2006
    Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Vance Cheyney Hendrickson, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr.,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Steve R. Matheny, OFFICE OF THE
    UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Vance Cheyney Hendrickson seeks to appeal the district
    court’s order denying relief on his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     (2000) motion.
    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   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 Hendrickson has
    not made the requisite showing.     Accordingly, we deny his motion
    for 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: 06-6157

Citation Numbers: 195 F. App'x 136

Judges: Williams, Motz, Traxler

Filed Date: 8/18/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/18/2024