UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-7622
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RUFUS TIMOTHY BRINN, III,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
Judge. (1:06-cr-00468-GBL-1; 1:08-cv-00276-GBL)
Submitted: April 6, 2009 Decided: June 9, 2009
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Rufus Timothy Brinn, III, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Elizabeth
Zirkle, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Rufus Timothy Brinn, III, seeks to appeal the district
court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.
2008) motion as untimely. The order is 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 that, although
the district court’s dispositive procedural ruling that Brinn’s
§ 2255 motion was untimely is debatable, see Clay v. United
States, 537 U.S. 522, 532 (2003), Brinn has not made the
requisite showing with respect to the merits of his
constitutional claims. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
2
presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3