United States v. Henry Richardson ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 21-7297
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    HENRY PAUL RICHARDSON, a/k/a Packer,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
    Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, Senior District Judge. (3:06-cr-00106-HEH-1; 3:09-cv-
    00382-HEH; 3:18-cv-00044-HEH)
    Submitted: January 20, 2022                                       Decided: January 25, 2022
    Before WILKINSON, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Henry Paul Richardson, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Henry Paul Richardson seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his Fed.
    R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from the district court’s prior order denying relief on his
    
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     motion and his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. The orders are not
    appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(1)(B). See generally United States v. McRae, 
    793 F.3d 392
    , 400 & n.7 (4th Cir.
    2015). 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, 
    137 S. Ct. 759
    , 773-74 (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 motion 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 Richardson has not
    made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and
    dismiss the appeal. We also deny Richardson’s motions to defer ruling on the appeal and
    for appointment of counsel. 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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 21-7297

Filed Date: 1/25/2022

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/25/2022