Sanders v. United States

329 F. App'x 390

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-8277

BILLY JOE SANDERS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent - Appellee.

No. 08-8279

TAMMIE RAINES SANDERS,

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (1:06-cr-00030-LHT-DLH-1; 1:06-cr-00030-LHT- DLH-2; 1:08-cv-00199-LHT; 1:08-cv-00200-LHT)

Submitted: July 30, 2009 Decided: August 3, 2009

Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles Robinson Brewer, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellants. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Billy Joe Sanders and

Tammie Raines Sanders seek to appeal the district court’s orders

denying relief on their 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009)

motions and the court’s subsequent orders denying their motions

for new trial. 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 that the Sanders

have 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