US v. Henry Obilo, No. 13-6589 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6589 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. HENRY OBILO, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:09-cr-00047-TSE-JFA-1; 1:11-cv-01142-TSE) Submitted: June 13, 2013 Decided: June 18, 2013 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Henry Obilo, Appellant Pro Se. Lindsay Androski Kelly, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Henry Obilo seeks to appeal the district court s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate (2006). of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) 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) (2006). relief on the merits, demonstrating district that court s debatable or a When the district court denies prisoner reasonable assessment wrong. satisfies jurists would of the v. McDaniel, Slack this standard find that the claims constitutional 529 by is 473, 484 U.S. (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states claim of the denial of a constitutional right. a debatable Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Obilo has not made the requisite showing. deny Obilo s certificate dispense of with motion for appointment appealability, and oral because argument 2 of dismiss the Accordingly, we counsel, the deny appeal. facts and a We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 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.
