US v. Bao Le

Filing 920090529

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6141 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. BAO Q. LE, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (7:07-cr-00037-SGW-MFU-1; 7:08-cv-80036-SGW-MFU) Submitted: May 21, 2009 Decided: May 29, 2009 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bao Q. Le, Appellant Pro Se. THE UNTIED STATES ATTORNEY, Appellee. Stephen John Pfleger, OFFICE OF Charlottesville, Virginia, for Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Bao Q. Le seeks to appeal the district court's order denying motion. judge relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 (West Supp. 2008) The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1) (2006). issue absent "a A certificate of appealability will not showing U.S.C. standard find the that of the denial of a A that the or substantial 28 constitutional prisoner reasonable right." this would by 2253(c)(2) by any (2006). satisfies jurists demonstrating assessment is of constitutional claims district court debatable 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 Le has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate We dispense with oral of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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 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?