Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07506/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07506-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael S. Buford
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED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. 

Appeal: 09-7506 Doc: 13 Filed: 02/09/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 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 

Appeal: 09-7506 Doc: 13 Filed: 02/09/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3 

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. The orders are not appealable 

unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of 

appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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). 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 

court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 

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

Appeal: 09-7506 Doc: 13 Filed: 02/09/2010 Pg: 3 of 3