Case ID: f-appx_64/html/0412-02.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. Lawrence Bernard GARRISON, Defendant-Appellant, United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lamont Harold Garrison, Defendant-Appellant.
    Nos. 03-6010, 03-6011.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted May 29, 2003.
    Decided June 3, 2003.
    Charles Frederick Daum, Arlington, Virginia; David Elliot Kenner, Encino, California, for Appellants. Morris Rudolph Parker, Jr., Assistant United States
    
      Attorney, James L. Trump, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM:

Lawrence Bernard Garrison and Lamont Harold Garrison seek to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on their motions filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding 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 his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1040, 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 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941, 122 S.Ct. 318, 151 L.Ed.2d 237 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that neither Appellant has 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.