Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Hendrickson v. Beck, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    8 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing Ronald Hendrickson's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The court determines that Hendrickson has not made a substantial showing that his constitutional rights were denied, as required to issue a certificate of appealability. As a result, the court dismisses Hendrickson's appeal without oral argument.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2008-07-02 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 08-6523

    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    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing Ronald Hendrickson's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The court determines that Hendrickson has not made a substantial showing that his constitutional rights were denied, as required to issue a certificate of appealability. As a result, the court dismisses Hendrickson's appeal without oral argument.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    8 views2 pages

    Hendrickson v. Beck, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing Ronald Hendrickson's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The court determines that Hendrickson has not made a substantial showing that his constitutional rights were denied, as required to issue a certificate of appealability. As a result, the court dismisses Hendrickson's appeal without oral argument.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 08-6523

    RONALD V. HENDRICKSON,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    THEODIS BECK,
    Corrections,

    Secretary

    of

    North

    Carolina

    Department

    of

    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief
    District Judge. (5:07-hc-02137-FL)

    Submitted:

    June 26, 2008

    Decided:

    July 2, 2008

    Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit
    Judge.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Ronald V. Hendrickson, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge,


    III, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Ronald

    V.

    Hendrickson

    seeks

    to

    appeal

    the

    district

    courts order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. 2254 (2000)


    petition.
    judge

    The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or

    issues

    certificate

    of

    appealability.

    See

    28

    U.S.C.

    2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000).

    A prisoner satisfies this

    standard by demonstrating that 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.

    See

    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

    Hendrickson has not made the requisite showing.

    conclude

    that

    Accordingly, we

    deny Hendricksons motion for a certificate of appealability and


    dismiss the appeal.
    facts

    and

    materials

    legal
    before

    We dispense with oral argument because the

    contentions
    the

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in

    the

    aid

    the

    decisional process.
    DISMISSED

    - 2 -

    You might also like