US v. Hughes, No. 07-4699 (4th Cir. 2007)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-4699 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BOBBY SAMUEL HUGHES, JR., Defendant -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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 -

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.