Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-08-06160/USCOURTS-ca4-08-06160-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Hugo Rene Gomez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6160

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

HUGO RENE GOMEZ, a/k/a Michael Christopher Fierro,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief

District Judge. (1:04-cr-00423-UA-3; 1:07-cv-00032-UA-RAE)

Submitted: April 17, 2008 Decided: April 24, 2008

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Hugo Rene Gomez, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller,

Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Case: 08-6160 Document: 0041361425 Date Filed: 04/21/2008 Page: 1 Appeal: 08-6160 Doc: 7-2 Filed: 04/24/2008 Pg: 1 of 2
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Hugo Rene Gomez seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denying

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is 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 Gomez has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. 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

Case: 08-6160 Document: 0041361425 Date Filed: 04/21/2008 Page: 2 Appeal: 08-6160 Doc: 7-2 Filed: 04/24/2008 Pg: 2 of 2