Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07497/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07497-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lamont Henderson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

 No. 07-7497 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

LAMONT HENDERSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court District for the

District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr.,

District Judge. (8:03-cr-00614-HMH; 8:07-cv-70066-HMH)

Submitted: December 20, 2007 Decided: December 28, 2007

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

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Lamont Henderson, Appellant Pro Se. Alan Lance Crick, Assistant

United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-7497 Doc: 9 Filed: 12/28/2007 Pg: 1 of 2
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Lamont Henderson seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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)(2000). 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 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 before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 07-7497 Doc: 9 Filed: 12/28/2007 Pg: 2 of 2