Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-08-07038/USCOURTS-ca4-08-07038-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Alonza Rufus
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-7038

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. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (3:04-cv-23082-MJP; 3:02-cr-00550-MJP-1)

Submitted: September 11, 2008 Decided: September 17, 2008

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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 08-7038 Doc: 8 Filed: 09/17/2008 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael Alonza Rufus seeks to appeal the district court’s

order treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as a successive 28

U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, and denying it on that basis. The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000);

Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). 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)

(2000). 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 that Rufus has not made the

requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal.

Additionally, we construe Rufus’ notice of appeal and

informal brief as an application to file a second or successive

motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. United States v. Winestock, 340

F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to

file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims

Appeal: 08-7038 Doc: 8 Filed: 09/17/2008 Pg: 2 of 3
3

based on either: (1) a new rule of constitutional law, previously

unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on

collateral review; or (2) newly discovered evidence, not previously

discoverable by due diligence, that would be sufficient to

establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for

constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the

movant guilty of the offense. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(2), 2255

(2000). Rufus’ claims do not satisfy either of these criteria.

Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2255

motion. 

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: 08-7038 Doc: 8 Filed: 09/17/2008 Pg: 3 of 3