Billy Sanders v. US

Filing 920090803

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT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-LHTDLH-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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. justice or The orders are not appealable unless a circuit issues a certificate of appealability. 28

judge

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). not issue absent "a

A certificate of appealability will showing of the denial (2006). of a A that the or

substantial 28

constitutional prisoner reasonable

right." this would by

U.S.C. standard

§ 2253(c)(2) by any

satisfies jurists

demonstrating assessment is of

find the

that

constitutional

claims

district

court

debatable

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 of the requisite showing. and Accordingly, the we deny We legal

certificates dispense

appealability oral argument

dismiss the

appeals. and

with

because

facts

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3