United States of America v. Henry Paul Richardson, a/k/a Packer

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-7297
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
HENRY PAUL RICHARDSON, a/k/a Packer,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, Senior District Judge. (3:06-cr-00106-HEH-1; 3:09-cv-
00382-HEH; 3:18-cv-00044-HEH)
Submitted: January 20, 2022 Decided: January 25, 2022
Before WILKINSON, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Henry Paul Richardson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Henry Paul Richardson seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his Fed.
R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from the district court’s prior order denying relief on his
28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. The orders are not
appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1)(B). See generally United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 400 & n.7 (4th Cir.
2015). 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). When the district court denies
relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable
jurists could find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or
wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017). 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Richardson has not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeal. We also deny Richardson’s motions to defer ruling on the appeal and
for appointment of counsel. 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

-- 2 of 2 --