US v. Paul Omoregbee, No. 08-7846 (4th Cir. 2008)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7846 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. PAUL OSARIASE MONDAY OMOREGBEE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:99-cr-00055-BO-1; 5:06-cv-00509-BO) Submitted: November 20, 2008 Decided: December 2, 2008 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Paul Osariase Monday Omoregbee, Appellant Pro Se. Steve R. Matheny, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Paul Osariase Monday Omoregbee seeks to appeal the district court s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. justice or The order is not appealable unless a circuit judge issues a certificate U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). not issue absent constitutional prisoner reasonable a satisfies jurists constitutional 28 this would claims by appealability. 28 A certificate of appealability will substantial right. of showing U.S.C. the the denial § 2253(c)(2) standard find of that district by (2000). demonstrating any assessment court is of a A that of the 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 Omoregbee has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. deny Omoregbee s dispense with motions oral for argument appointment because the of We also counsel. facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2

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.