United States of America v. Michael S. Buford, a/k/a Billy

UNPUBLISHED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.

-- 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

-- 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

-- 3 of 3 --