Filed: Jun. 26, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6519 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CARLOS ALBERTO PEREZ-FULGENCIO, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (5:01-cr-30058-FFF; 7:05-cv-00235-sgw) Submitted: June 16, 2006 Decided: June 26, 2006 Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carl
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6519 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CARLOS ALBERTO PEREZ-FULGENCIO, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (5:01-cr-30058-FFF; 7:05-cv-00235-sgw) Submitted: June 16, 2006 Decided: June 26, 2006 Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carlo..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-6519
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CARLOS ALBERTO PEREZ-FULGENCIO,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District
Judge. (5:01-cr-30058-FFF; 7:05-cv-00235-sgw)
Submitted: June 16, 2006 Decided: June 26, 2006
Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Carlos Alberto Perez-Fulgencio, Appellant Pro Se. Ray B.
Fitzgerald, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Carlos Alberto Perez-Fulgencio seeks to appeal the
district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255
(2000) motion. The district court referred this case to a
magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The
magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised
Perez-Fulgencio that the failure to file timely objections to this
recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court
order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Perez-
Fulgencio failed to object to the magistrate judge’s
recommendation.
The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate
judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of
the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been
warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v. Collins,
766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn,
474
U.S. 140 (1985). Perez-Fulgencio has waived appellate review by
failing to timely file specific objections after receiving proper
notice. 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 before
the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 2 -