Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Hendricks v. Cohen, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views3 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Larry Edward Hendricks regarding the denial of his Rule 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. The court concludes that Hendricks has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right as required for a certificate of appealability. As a result, the court dismisses the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2010-05-12 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 09-7948

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Larry Edward Hendricks regarding the denial of his Rule 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. The court concludes that Hendricks has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right as required for a certificate of appealability. As a result, the court dismisses the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    3 views3 pages

    Hendricks v. Cohen, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Larry Edward Hendricks regarding the denial of his Rule 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. The court concludes that Hendricks has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right as required for a certificate of appealability. As a result, the court dismisses the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 09-7948

    LARRY EDWARD HENDRICKS,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    LEVERN COHEN, Warden,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Columbia.
    David C. Norton, Chief District
    Judge. (3:08-cv-00044-DCN)

    Submitted:

    March 25, 2010

    Decided:

    May 12, 2010

    Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Larry Edward Hendricks, Appellant Pro Se. Erin Mary Farrell,


    Daniel Roy Settana, Jr., MCKAY, CAUTHEN, SETTANA & STUBLEY, PA,
    Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Larry Edward Hendricks seeks to appeal the district
    courts

    order

    denying

    his

    Fed.

    R.

    Civ.

    P.

    60(b)

    motion

    for

    reconsideration of the district courts order denying relief on


    his

    28

    U.S.C.

    appealable

    2254

    unless

    (2006)

    petition.

    circuit

    justice

    certificate of appealability.
    Reid

    v.

    Angelone,

    A certificate

    of

    369

    The
    or

    order

    judge

    is

    not

    issues

    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1) (2006);

    F.3d

    363,

    appealability

    369

    will

    (4th

    not

    Cir.

    issue

    2004).

    absent

    substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.


    28

    U.S.C.

    standard

    2253(c)(2)

    by

    (2006).

    demonstrating

    that

    prisoner

    reasonable

    satisfies

    jurists

    would

    this
    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 Hendricks 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

    the

    court

    and

    argument

    would

    not

    aid

    the

    decisional process.
    DISMISSED

    You might also like