Court Opinion

ID: 6112467
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-25 20:00:58.74742+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:02:20.990831
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 21-7297

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

HENRY PAUL RICHARDSON, a/k/a Packer,

                    Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, Senior District Judge. (3:06-cr-00106-HEH-1; 3:09-cv-
00382-HEH; 3:18-cv-00044-HEH)

Submitted: January 20, 2022                                       Decided: January 25, 2022

Before WILKINSON, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Henry Paul Richardson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

       Henry Paul Richardson seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his Fed.

R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from the district court’s prior order denying relief on his

28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. The orders are not

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

§ 2253(c)(1)(B). See generally United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 400 & n.7 (4th Cir.

2015). 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). When the district court denies

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable

jurists could find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or

wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017). 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v.

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

       We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Richardson has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal. We also deny Richardson’s motions to defer ruling on the appeal and

for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

                                                                                DISMISSED

                                              2