US v. Jerome Henry

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [999431645-2]; denying updating certificate of appealability status Originating case number: 4:11-cr-00416-TLW-7,4:13-cv-02298-TLW Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999511344].. [14-7296]

Appeal: 14-7296

Doc: 9

Filed: 01/15/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7296

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JEROME HENRY,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence.
Terry L. Wooten, Chief District
Judge. (4:11-cr-00416-TLW-7; 4:13-cv-02298-TLW)

Submitted:

December 1, 2014

Decided:

January 15, 2015

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jerome Henry, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea,
Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7296

Doc: 9

Filed: 01/15/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Jerome

Henry

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.

The

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

certificate

(2012).

of

appealability.

28

U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)(B)

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).
relief

on

the

demonstrating
district

merits,
that

court’s

debatable

or

a

When the district court denies

prisoner

reasonable

assessment

wrong.

Slack

satisfies

jurists

this

would

of

the

v.

McDaniel,

standard

find

U.S.

that

the

claims

constitutional
529

by

is

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

claim of the denial of a constitutional right.

a

debatable

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 the motion for 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

2

Appeal: 14-7296

before

Doc: 9

this

Filed: 01/15/2015

court

and

Pg: 3 of 3

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process.
DISMISSED

3