United States v. Hughes , 258 F. App'x 558 ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 07-4699
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    BOBBY SAMUEL HUGHES, JR.,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    No. 07-7173
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    BOBBY SAMUEL HUGHES, JR.,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond.     James R. Spencer, Chief
    District Judge. (3:00-cr-00004-JRS; 3:05-cv-00800-JRS)
    Submitted:   November 30, 2007         Decided:     December 20, 2007
    Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Bobby Samuel Hughes, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.       Michael Cornell
    Wallace, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia,
    for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    - 2 -
    PER CURIAM:
    Bobby Samuel Hughes, Jr. seeks to appeal the district
    court’s orders dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000)
    motion and denying his motions for a certificate of appealability
    and for leave to appeal in forma pauperis.            The orders are not
    appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate
    of appealability. 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.    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 Hughes has not made the requisite showing.
    Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
    appeals.     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
    - 3 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-4699, 07-7173

Citation Numbers: 258 F. App'x 558

Judges: Niemeyer, Gregory, Duncan

Filed Date: 12/20/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024