US v. Christopher Ruffin, No. 14-6862 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6862 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. CHRISTOPHER J. RUFFIN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:09-cr-00335-HEH-1; 3:12-cv-00432-HEH) Submitted: November 20, 2014 Decided: November 26, 2014 Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christopher J. Ruffin, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Wiley Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Christopher J. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). issue absent “a of U.S.C. district § 2255 appealability. 28 (2012) U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right.” 28 the The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or certificate his appeal motion. a on to order issues relief seeks court’s judge denying Ruffin showing of the denial 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). of a 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 Ruffin has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. dispense with oral argument because 2 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