US v. Michael Buford, No. 09-7506 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7506 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MICHAEL S. BUFORD, a/k/a Billy, Defendant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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, Michael S. Buford seeks to appeal the district court s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. §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 appealability. justice The orders are not appealable or judge issues 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). a certificate of 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 Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. court is likewise debatable. 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 of appealability and dismiss the appeals. 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 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.
