US v. Michael Rufus, No. 15-7418 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7418 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MICHAEL ALONZA RUFUS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior District Judge. (3:02-cr-00550-MBS-1; 3:15-cv-01101-MBS) Submitted: January 5, 2016 Before WILKINSON and Senior Circuit Judge. NIEMEYER, Decided: Circuit Judges, January 8, 2016 and HAMILTON, Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Alonza Rufus, Appellant Pro Se. Witherspoon, Beth Drake, Assistant United Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. William Kenneth States Attorneys, Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michael Alonza Rufus seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration of the district court’s order denying and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. judge The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or issues a certificate § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). issue absent “a prisoner the See 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not showing of the denial of a 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). district court satisfies this jurists would reasonable appealability. substantial constitutional right.” When of denies relief standard find by that on the merits, demonstrating the district a that court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). denies relief demonstrate on both procedural that the When the district court grounds, dispositive the prisoner procedural must 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 Rufus has not made the requisite showing. a certificate dispense with of appealability oral argument and dismiss because 2 Accordingly, we deny the the appeal. facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 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.
