US v. Hendrickson, No. 06-6157 (4th Cir. 2006)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6157 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus VANCE CHEYNEY HENDRICKSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (4:01-cr-00042-H; 4:04-cv-00079-H) Submitted: July 31, 2006 Decided: August 18, 2006 Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Vance Cheyney Hendrickson, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Steve R. Matheny, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Vance Cheyney Hendrickson seeks to appeal the district court s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. (2000). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) A certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). demonstrating that 28 A prisoner satisfies this standard by reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hendrickson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny his motion for 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED - 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.