Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07948/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07948-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Levern Cohen
Appellee
Larry Edward Hendricks
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7948

LARRY EDWARD HENDRICKS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

LEVERN COHEN, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Columbia. David C. Norton, Chief District 

Judge. (3:08-cv-00044-DCN)

Submitted: March 25, 2010 Decided: May 12, 2010

Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Larry Edward Hendricks, Appellant Pro Se. Erin Mary Farrell, 

Daniel Roy Settana, Jr., MCKAY, CAUTHEN, SETTANA & STUBLEY, PA, 

Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 09-7948 Doc: 16 Filed: 05/12/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Larry Edward Hendricks 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 (2006) petition. 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). 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 Hendricks 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 

Appeal: 09-7948 Doc: 16 Filed: 05/12/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 09-7948 Doc: 16 Filed: 05/12/2010 Pg: 3 of 3