United States v. Henderson, 10th Cir. (2017)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsUnited States v. Henderson, 10th Cir. (2017)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsFILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT July 20, 2017
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
No. 17-3101
v. (D. Kansas)
(D.C. Nos. 2:13-CR-20065-CM-1
CHARLES HENDERSON, JR., 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.
Hendersons 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. Hendersons
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 attorneys performance was deficient and prejudicial. Strickland v.
Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). The district court rejected Mr.
Hendersons claim, concluding that his attorneys efforts were reasonable
and did not prejudice Mr. Hendersons 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
