US v. David Henderson, No. 09-7132 (4th Cir. 2009)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7132 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. DAVID HENDERSON, a/k/a Charldrick James Robinson, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief District Judge. (5:05-cr-00163-FL-1; 5:08-cv-00319-FL) Submitted: November 17, 2009 Decided: November 23, 2009 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Henderson, Appellant Pro Se. Anne Margaret Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: David Henderson seeks to appeal the district court s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2006) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. certificate of 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). appealability will not issue absent A a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). demonstrating that 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). conclude We that have Henderson independently has not reviewed made the the record requisite and showing. Accordingly, we deny his motion to supplement the record, deny a certificate dispense of with appealability, and oral because argument dismiss the the appeal. facts and We 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.