NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 10a0103n.06
No. 08-1587
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
MARIO HENDERSON, FILED
Feb 17, 2010
Petitioner-Appellant, LEONARD GREEN, Clerk
v. ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
KURT JONES, Warden, EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Respondent-Appellee.
/
BEFORE: NORRIS, CLAY, and SUTTON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM. Petitioner Mario Henderson appeals the district court’s denial of his
petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Henderson was convicted
of felony murder, second degree murder, assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder,
assault with intent to rob being armed, and felony firearm after the shooting death of Anthony Capers
and the gunshot injuries of Cecil Brewington during an attempted drug-related robbery. On appeal,
Henderson raises three grounds for relief: (1) that he was denied due process of law when the State
used perjured testimony at trial that led to his conviction and a newly discovered witness provided
evidence establishing prejudice to his right to a fair trial; (2) that he was denied due process of law
because there was insufficient evidence to sustain the verdict; and (3) that he was denied a fair trial
by the prosecutor’s improper remarks during voir dire and closing arguments.
We review the district court’s dismissal of a petition brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254
de novo, but we review the district court’s underlying actual findings for clear error. Thompson v.
Bell, 580 F.3d 423, 433 (6th Cir. 2009) (citing White v. Mitchell, 431 F.3d 517, 524 (6th Cir. 2005)).
After having the benefit of oral argument and carefully considering the record on appeal, the
briefs of the parties, and the relevant law, we are not persuaded that the district court erred in
denying Henderson’s habeas petition. Because the district court has thoroughly articulated the
reasoning that supports the denial of Henderson’s habeas petition, the issuance of a detailed written
opinion by this Court would be duplicative and serve no useful purpose.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court upon the reasoning set out by
that court in its opinion and order filed on April 14, 2008.