US v. Ruelas

Filing 920080118


Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7203 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CARLOS HECTOR RUELAS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:05-cr-00442-TSE-3) Submitted: January 7, 2008 Decided: January 18, 2008 Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sol Zalel Rosen, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. John C. Lynch, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Carlos Hector Ruelas, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order granting in part and denying in part his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255 (2000). The district court granted relief under United States v. Peak, 992 F.2d 39 (4th Cir. 1993), on Ruelas' claim that counsel failed to file a notice of appeal from the criminal judgment after being directed to do so, vacated the criminal judgment, and reinstated the judgment to afford Ruelas an opportunity to file a direct appeal.* Ruelas' remaining claims. pending before this court. The district court denied Ruelas' direct appeal is currently Because the sentencing claims on which the district court denied 2255 relief may be raised in the reinstated direct appeal, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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 Ruelas does not challenge on appeal the district court's grant of relief under Peak. - 2 - *

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?