Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07173/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07173-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED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.

Appeal: 07-7173 Doc: 10 Filed: 12/20/2007 Pg: 1 of 3
- 2 -

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-7173 Doc: 10 Filed: 12/20/2007 Pg: 2 of 3
- 3 -

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

Appeal: 07-7173 Doc: 10 Filed: 12/20/2007 Pg: 3 of 3