US v. Zeb Anthony Henson
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 6:10-cr-00013-EKD-RSB-1,6:16-cv-80891-EKD-RSB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000089175]. Mailed to: Zeb Anthony Henson. [17-6095]
Appeal: 17-6095
Doc: 11
Filed: 05/26/2017
Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-6095
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ZEB ANTHONY HENSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Lynchburg. Elizabeth Kay Dillon, District Judge. (6:10-cr-00013-EKD-RSB-1; 6:16-cv80891-EKD-RSB)
Submitted: May 23, 2017
Decided: May 26, 2017
Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Zeb Anthony Henson, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Andrew Bassford, Assistant United
States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 17-6095
Doc: 11
Filed: 05/26/2017
Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Zeb Anthony Henson seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as
untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. 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 Henson 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 this court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?