Court Opinion

ID: 4248596
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-02-27 20:00:27.413804+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:10.691025
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 17-7651

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

ASHANTI RHAN HENRY, a/k/a A-1,

                    Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Abingdon. James P. Jones, District Judge. (1:12-cr-00024-JPJ-RSB-1; 1:17-cv-81297-
JPJ-RSB)

Submitted: February 22, 2018                                 Decided: February 27, 2018

Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ashanti Rhan Henry, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer R. Bockhorst, Zachary T. Lee, Assistant
United States Attorneys, Mary Kathleen Carnell, Abingdon, Virginia, Charlene Rene
Day, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Ashanti Rhan Henry seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28

U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as successive. The order is not appealable unless a circuit

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (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 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 Henry has not made

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Henry’s

motion for transcripts at government expense, and dismiss the appeal. 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