US v. Stanley Hoberek, No. 09-6466 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6466 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. STANLEY HOBEREK, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:99-cr-00013-FPS-JES-1; 5:00-cv-00184-FPS-JES) Submitted: September 29, 2009 Decided: October 6, 2009 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stanley Hoberek, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Hugh McWilliams, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Stanley Hoberek seeks to appeal the district court s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motions as successive 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009) motions, and dismissing them on that basis. justice or The order is not appealable unless a circuit judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. this 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). standard by demonstrating that A prisoner satisfies 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 record and Cir. 2001). conclude showing. We that Accordingly, have Hoberek we deny independently has not made Hoberek s reviewed the the requisite motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. Additionally, we construe Hoberek s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to successive motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255. 2 file a second or United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). obtain authorization prisoner must discovered to assert evidence, file a claims not successive based previously on In order to § 2255 either: discoverable motion, a (1) newly by due diligence, that would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense; or (2) a new rule of constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review. Hoberek s claims 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255(h) (West Supp. 2009). do not satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. DISMISSED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
