Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Linwood Lee RUFFIN, a/k/a Lenny, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-09-16
Citations: 332 F. App'x 865
Docket Number: No. 09-6978
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Linwood Lee RUFFIN, a/k/a Lenny, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before KING, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 332
Pages: 865–866

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Linwood Lee RUFFIN, a/k/a Lenny, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-6978.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 10, 2009.
Decided: Sept. 16, 2009.
Linwood Lee Ruffin, Appellant Pro Se. Sonya LaGene Sacks, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before KING, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Linwood Lee Ruffin seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his Rule 60(b) motion seeking reconsideration of the denial of his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2009) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006);); 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) (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, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude Ruffin 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 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.