UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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