Opinion
23-6025
06-21-2023
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DAVON HENDERSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Davon Henderson, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: June 15, 2023.
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)
Davon Henderson, Appellant Pro Se.
Before DIAZ, RICHARDSON, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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. § 2255 motion 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 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