Sanders v. United States , 329 F. App'x 390 ( 2009 )

UNPUBLISHED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,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent - Appellee.
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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
3