Court Opinion

ID: 9404379
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-22 21:03:20.149641+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:13.464571
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6025      Doc: 7         Filed: 06/21/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6025

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        DAVON HENDERSON,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (4:19-cr-00061-BO-1; 4:22-cv-00006-BO)

        Submitted: June 15, 2023                                            Decided: June 21, 2023

        Before DIAZ, RICHARDSON, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Davon Henderson, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6025      Doc: 7         Filed: 06/21/2023      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Davon Henderson appeals the district court’s orders denying his 18 U.S.C.

        § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release and denying reconsideration. Upon

        review, we discern no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision. See United

        States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 185 (4th Cir. 2021) (stating standard of review).

        Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. United States v. Henderson, No.

        4:19-cr-00061-BO-1 (E.D.N.C. Mar. 18, 2022; Jan. 8, 2023).

               Henderson also seeks to appeal the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255

        motion and the denial of reconsideration. The court’s orders are not appealable unless a

        circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A).

        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, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (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 petition 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 Henderson has not

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

        dismiss the appeal of the court’s orders dismissing Henderson’s § 2255 motion and denying

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6025         Doc: 7     Filed: 06/21/2023     Pg: 3 of 3

        reconsideration. 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.

                                                                            AFFIRMED IN PART,
                                                                            DISMISSED IN PART

                                                    3