US v. Theodore Henderson, II

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:90-cr-00102-CMH-2,1:14-cv-00738-CMH. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999587590].. [14-7676]

Appeal: 14-7676

Doc: 12

Filed: 05/21/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7676

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
THEODORE HENDERSON, II, a/k/a Theodore Henderson, III,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:90-cr-00102-CMH-2; 1:14-cv-00738-CMH)

Submitted:

May 19, 2015

Decided: May 21, 2015

Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeremy Brian Gordon, JEREMY GORDON, PLLC, Mansfield, Texas, for
Appellant.
Lawrence Joseph Leiser, Assistant United States
Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7676

Doc: 12

Filed: 05/21/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Theodore

Henderson,

II,

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012)
motion.
judge

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
issue

absent

“a

of

28

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

appealability.

showing

of

the

denial

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).

of

a

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

Cockrell,

(2000);

(2003).

see

Miller-El

v.

537

U.S.

322,

336-38

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
Henderson has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
dispense

with

oral

argument

because

2

the

facts

and

We

legal

Appeal: 14-7676

Doc: 12

contentions

are

Filed: 05/21/2015

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

3