Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bobby Samuel HUGHES, Jr., Defendant-Appellant; United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bobby Samuel Hughes, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-12-20
Citations: 258 F. App'x 558
Docket Number: Nos. 07-4699, 07-7173
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bobby Samuel HUGHES, Jr., Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bobby Samuel Hughes, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 258
Pages: 558–558

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bobby Samuel HUGHES, Jr., Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bobby Samuel Hughes, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 07-4699, 07-7173.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 30, 2007.
Decided: Dec. 20, 2007.
Bobby Samuel Hughes, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Michael Cornell Wallace, Office of the United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
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(e)(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, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (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.