US v. Maurilio Prieto-Rubi

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [998558608-2] Originating case number: 3:06-cr-00017-nkm-1,3:09-cv-80186-nkm-mfu Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998602259]. Mailed to: Maurilio Prieto-Rubi. [11-6222]

Appeal: 11-6222

Document: 9

Date Filed: 06/01/2011

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6222

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MAURILIO PRIETO-RUBI,
Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Charlottesville.
Norman K. Moon,
Senior District Judge. (3:06-cr-00017-nkm-1; 3:09-cv-80186-nkmmfu)

Submitted:

May 26, 2011

Decided:

June 1, 2011

Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Maurilio Prieto-Rubi, Appellant Pro Se.
Ronald Mitchell Huber,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-6222

Document: 9

Date Filed: 06/01/2011

Page: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Maurilio

Prieto-Rubi

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West
Supp. 2010) motion.

The district court referred this case to a

magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West
2006

&

Supp.

2010).

The

magistrate

judge

recommended

that

relief be denied and advised Prieto-Rubi that the failure to
file

timely

appellate

objections

review

of

a

to

this

district

recommendation
court

order

could

based

waive

upon

the

recommendation.
The
magistrate

timely

judge’s

filing

of

recommendation

specific
is

objections

necessary

to

to

a

preserve

appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when
the

parties

have

1985);

Prieto-Rubi

warned

of

see
has

also

Thomas

waived

v.

appellate

Arn,

motion

for

a

474

review

objections after receiving proper notice.
Prieto-Rubi’s

the

consequences

of

Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th

noncompliance.
Cir.

been

certificate

by

U.S.

140

failing

(1985).
to

file

Accordingly, we deny
of

appealability

and

dismiss the appeal.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal

contentions

are

adequately

2

presented

in

the

materials

Appeal: 11-6222

before

Document: 9

Date Filed: 06/01/2011

the

and

court

argument

would

Page: 3 of 3

not

aid

the

decisional

process.

DISMISSED

3