US v. Timothy Ruff, No. 12-8016 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-8016 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TIMOTHY LAMONT RUFF, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Shelby. Martin K. Reidinger, District Judge. (4:96-cr-00056-MR-1; 1:12-cv-00187-MR) Submitted: March 28, 2013 Decided: April 2, 2013 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Timothy Lamont Ruff, Appellant Pro Se. David A. Thorneloe, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Timothy Ruff seeks to appeal the district court s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion as successive. justice or The order is not appealable unless a circuit judge issues a certificate U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). of appealability. 28 A certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 Cockrell, (2000); (2003). see Miller-El v. 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Ruff has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. dispense with oral argument because the facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3