US v. Somsak Saeku, No. 14-6364 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6364 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. SOMSAK SAEKU, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:07-cr-00304-BO-1; 5:12-cv-00616-BO) Submitted: July 29, 2014 Decided: July 31, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Somsak Saeku, Appellant Pro Se. William Miller Gilmore, Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Stephen Aubrey West, Assistant United States Attorneys, Gaston Williams, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Somsak Saeku seeks to appeal the district court s orders denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion and denying relief on his motions for recusal, to dismiss the indictment, for reconsideration, and to amend his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, which the district court had already denied. * The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. A certificate of 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). relief on the demonstrating district debatable merits, that court s or a When the district court denies prisoner reasonable assessment wrong. Slack satisfies jurists this would of the v. McDaniel, standard find U.S. that the claims constitutional 529 by is 473, 484 (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 a debatable To the extent Saeku attempts to challenge the district court s denial of his first § 2255 motion, he failed to file a timely notice of appeal from that order, thereby depriving us of jurisdiction. 2 claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Saeku has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. dispense with contentions are oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts We and legal 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.
