United States v. Davon Henderson ( 2023 )

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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. § 2255motion 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