US v. Maurilio Prieto-Rubi, No. 11-6222 (4th Cir. 2011)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6222 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MAURILIO PRIETO-RUBI, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon, Senior District Judge. (3:06-cr-00017-nkm-1; 3:09-cv-80186-nkmmfu) Submitted: May 26, 2011 Decided: June 1, 2011 Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Maurilio Prieto-Rubi, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Mitchell Huber, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Maurilio Prieto-Rubi seeks to appeal the district court s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp. 2010). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Prieto-Rubi that the failure to file timely appellate objections review of a to this district recommendation court order could based waive upon the recommendation. The magistrate timely judge s filing of recommendation specific is objections necessary to to a preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have 1985); Prieto-Rubi warned of see has also Thomas waived v. appellate Arn, motion for a 474 review objections after receiving proper notice. Prieto-Rubi s the consequences of Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th noncompliance. Cir. been certificate by U.S. 140 failing (1985). to file Accordingly, we deny of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 2 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.