US v. Michael Buford
Filing
920100209
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-7506
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MICHAEL S. BUFORD, a/k/a Billy, Defendant - Appellant.
No. 09-7552
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MICHAEL S. BUFORD, a/k/a Billy, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:03-cr-00360-CMH-2; 1:09-cv-00169-CMH)
Submitted:
January 14, 2010
Decided:
February 9, 2010
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael S. Buford, Appellant Pro Se. Jeffrey L. Shih, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, Michael S. Buford seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009) motion and his motion for a certificate of appealability. unless a circuit justice or The orders are not appealable 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." (2006). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)
A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating
that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or
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 Buford has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny certificates We dispense with oral
of appealability and dismiss the appeals.
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
3
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?