Court Opinion

ID: 1018619
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 22:23:05.90272+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:47.408021
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 05-6850

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

TOMMY HENDERSON, a/k/a Thomas A. Henderson,
a/k/a Tommie Henderson, a/k/a Tom Lamont
Henderson, a/k/a Tommy Lemont Henderson, a/k/a
Tommy Lamont Henderson,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston.   Patrick Michael Duffy, District
Judge. (CR-02-826; CA-04-23224-2)

Submitted:   February 23, 2006             Decided:   March 1, 2006

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tommy Henderson, Appellant Pro Se. Lee Ellis Berlinsky, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

             Tommy Henderson seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000).     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

the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is

debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the

district court are also debatable or wrong.              See 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

                                     - 2 -