From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Henriques

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Dec 19, 2012
501 F. App'x 224 (4th Cir. 2012)

Opinion

No. 12-7662

12-19-2012

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. PHILLIP HENRIQUES, Defendant - Appellant.

Phillip Henriques, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.


UNPUBLISHED

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (3:93-cr-00089-MOC-2; 3:12-cv-00558-MOC) Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Phillip Henriques, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Phillip Henriques seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). 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) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 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. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Henriques has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED


Summaries of

United States v. Henriques

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Dec 19, 2012
501 F. App'x 224 (4th Cir. 2012)
Case details for

United States v. Henriques

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. PHILLIP HENRIQUES…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Dec 19, 2012

Citations

501 F. App'x 224 (4th Cir. 2012)

Citing Cases

Henriques v. Hollingsworth

The court noted his previous § 2255 filings, dismissed the petition as second or successive, and declined to…