Case ID: f-appx_693/html/0781-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Robert E. Bacharach Circuit Judge", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles HENDERSON, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 17-3101
    United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
    Filed July 20, 2017
    (D.C. Nos. 2:13-CR-20065-CM-l and 2:15-CV-09197-CM) (D. Kansas)
    Carrie N. Capwell, Office of the United States Attorney, District of Kansas, Kansas City, KS, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Charles Henderson, Jr., Pro Se
    Before HARTZ, HOLMES, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.
   ORDER DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY AND DISMISSING THE APPEAL

Robert E. Bacharach Circuit Judge

Mr. Charles Henderson, Jr. pleaded guilty in federal court on drug charges and was sentenced to 129 months in prison. After unsuccessfully moving to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, Mr. Henderson seeks a certificate of appeala-bility so that he can appeal. We deny Mr. Henderson’s request for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

Mr. Henderson can appeal only if we issue a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). This certificate is available only if an applicant can make a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). This showing has been made only if reasonable jurists, could debate the merits of Mr. Henderson’s appeal. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000).

Mr. Henderson argues that the district court improperly dismissed his claim of ineffective assistance. For this claim, Mr. Henderson had to show that his attorney’s performance was deficient and prejudicial. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2062, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). The district court rejected Mr. Henderson’s claim, concluding that his attorney’s efforts were reasonable and did not prejudice Mr. Henderson’s sentencing. For substantially the same reasons discussed by the district court, we conclude that its ruling is not subject to reasonable debate. Thus, we decline to issue a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.