United States v. Henderson, No. 17-3101 (10th Cir. 2017)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, July 20, 2017 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CHARLES HENDERSON, JR., No. 17-3101 (D. Kansas) (D.C. Nos. 2:13-CR-20065-CM-1 and 2:15-CV-09197-CM) Defendant - Appellant. ORDER DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY AND DISMISSING THE APPEAL Before HARTZ, HOLMES, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges. Mr. Charles Henderson, Jr. pleaded guilty in federal court on drug charges and was sentenced to 129 months in prison. After unsuccessfully moving to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, Mr. Henderson seeks a certificate of appealability so that he can appeal. We deny Mr. Henderson’s request for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. Mr. Henderson can appeal only if we issue a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). This certificate is available only if an applicant can make a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). This showing has been made only if reasonable jurists could debate the merits of Mr. Henderson’s appeal. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Mr. Henderson argues that the district court improperly dismissed his claim of ineffective assistance. For this claim, Mr. Henderson had to show that his attorney’s performance was deficient and prejudicial. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). The district court rejected Mr. Henderson’s claim, concluding that his attorney’s efforts were reasonable and did not prejudice Mr. Henderson’s sentencing. For substantially the same reasons discussed by the district court, we conclude that its ruling is not subject to reasonable debate. Thus, we decline to issue a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. Entered for the Court Robert E. Bacharach Circuit Judge 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.