US v. Rufus Timothy Brinn, III, No. 08-7622 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7622 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RUFUS TIMOTHY BRINN, III, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (1:06-cr-00468-GBL-1; 1:08-cv-00276-GBL) Submitted: April 6, 2009 Decided: June 9, 2009 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rufus Timothy Brinn, III, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Elizabeth Zirkle, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Rufus Timothy Brinn, III, seeks to appeal the district court s order dismissing his 2008) motion as untimely. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. The order is 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 prisoner right. satisfies reasonable jurists constitutional 28 this by § 2253(c)(2) standard would claims U.S.C. find the by that demonstrating any district (2006). assessment court is A that of debatable the 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 that, although the district court s dispositive procedural ruling that Brinn s § 2255 motion States, 537 requisite was U.S. showing untimely 522, 532 with constitutional claims. is debatable, (2003), respect Brinn to Clay see the has not merits v. United made the of his Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 2 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
