Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07418/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07418-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED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 Decided: January 8, 2016

Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, 

Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Alonza Rufus, Appellant Pro Se. William Kenneth 

Witherspoon, Beth Drake, Assistant United States Attorneys, 

Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7418 Doc: 9 Filed: 01/08/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

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. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) (2012). 

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 (2000); see Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 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 

Rufus has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

Appeal: 15-7418 Doc: 9 Filed: 01/08/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-7418 Doc: 9 Filed: 01/08/2016 Pg: 3 of 3