Case ID: f-appx_223/html/0212-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Allen JETT, a/k/a Al, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antoine Depaul Marshall, a/k/a Chim Chim, Defendant-Appellant.
    Nos. 06-6952, 06-6953.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: March 29, 2007.
    Decided: April 3, 2007.
    
      Thomas Turner Ruffin, Jr., Washington, D.C., for Appellants. Jamie M. Bennett, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
    Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Allen Jett and Antoine Marshall seek to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on their 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motions, and their motions for reconsideration filed under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). 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, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that neither Jett nor Marshall has made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny certificates of appealability and dismiss the appeals. We further deny the pending motions for the appointment of counsel. 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.