UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-6978
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LINWOOD LEE RUFFIN, a/k/a Lenny,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior
District Judge. (1:99-cr-00024-TSE-1)
Submitted: September 10, 2009 Decided: September 16, 2009
Before KING, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Linwood Lee Ruffin, Appellant Pro Se. Sonya LaGene Sacks,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 (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 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
2