US v. Nathan Hughes

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case numbers: 6:04-cr-00127-4,6:07-cv-0702. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998424135] [10-6260]

US v. Nathan Hughes

Doc. 0

Case: 10-6260 Document: 10

Date Filed: 09/14/2010

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6260 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. NATHAN J. HUGHES, a/k/a Nate, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Parkersburg. Joseph R. Goodwin, Chief District Judge. (6:04-cr-00127-4; 6:07-cv-00702) Submitted: August 30, 2010 SHEDD, Circuit Decided: Judges, and September 14, 2010 HAMILTON, Senior

Before MOTZ and Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nathan J. Hughes, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Gregory McVey, Assistant United States Attorney, Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 10-6260 Document: 10

Date Filed: 09/14/2010

Page: 2

PER CURIAM: Nathan J. Hughes seeks to appeal the district court's order adopting in part and denying in part the magistrate

judge's report and recommendation and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion and denying his motion for reconsideration. The orders are not appealable unless a

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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). When the

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would

find that the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 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 claim of the denial of a constitutional right. 529 U.S. at 484-85. Slack,

We have independently reviewed the record

and conclude that Hughes has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, 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 2

Case: 10-6260 Document: 10

Date Filed: 09/14/2010

Page: 3

before

the

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process. DISMISSED

3