Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07831/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07831-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7831

ROBERT HENSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD CLARKE, Director of Virginia Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior 

District Judge. (1:14-cv-00173-CMH-TCB)

Submitted: February 25, 2016 Decided: March 2, 2016

Before SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Henson, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7831 Doc: 9 Filed: 03/02/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Robert Henson seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of 

the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 

(2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit 

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (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 petition 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 

Henson 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 

Appeal: 15-7831 Doc: 9 Filed: 03/02/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-7831 Doc: 9 Filed: 03/02/2016 Pg: 3 of 3