Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06477/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06477-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David Henderson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6477

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

DAVID HENDERSON, a/k/a Charldrick James Robinson,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, 

Chief District Judge. (5:05-cr-00163-FL-1; 5:08-cv-00319-FL)

Submitted: May 14, 2010 Decided: May 20, 2010

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Henderson, Appellant Pro Se. Anne Margaret Hayes, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-6477 Doc: 8 Filed: 05/20/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

David Henderson seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from

the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 

Supp. 2009) motion. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 

369 (4th Cir. 2004). 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) (2006). 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 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 

Appeal: 10-6477 Doc: 8 Filed: 05/20/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 10-6477 Doc: 8 Filed: 05/20/2010 Pg: 3 of 3