United States v. Henry Paul Richardson ( 2018 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-7517
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
HENRY PAUL RICHARDSON, a/k/a Packer,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:06-cr-00106-HEH-1; 3:17-cv-00732-
HEH)
Submitted: March 29, 2018 Decided: April 3, 2018
Before AGEE and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Henry Paul Richardson, Appellant Pro Se. Gurney Wingate Grant, II, Assistant United
States Attorney, Brian R. Hood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Henry Paul Richardson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his
untimely Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion challenging the dismissal of his unauthorized 28
U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and denial of his motion to amend. He also seeks to appeal
that part of the court’s order denying his motions to stay the mandate and stay the appeal
period. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of
appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies
this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s
assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.
473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district
court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the
dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of
the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Richardson has not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny
leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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