Case Name: Billy Joe SANDERS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent - Appellee; Tammie Raines Sanders, Petitioner- Appellant, v. United States of America, Respondent- Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-08-03
Citations: 329 F. App'x 386
Docket Number: Nos. 08-8277, 08-8279
Parties: Billy Joe SANDERS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent — Appellee. Tammie Raines Sanders, Petitioner— Appellant, v. United States of America, Respondent— Appellee.
Judges: Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 329
Pages: 386–387

Head Matter:
Billy Joe SANDERS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent — Appellee. Tammie Raines Sanders, Petitioner— Appellant, v. United States of America, Respondent— Appellee.
Nos. 08-8277, 08-8279.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 30, 2009.
Decided: Aug. 3, 2009.
Charles Robinson Brewer, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellants. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appel-lee.
Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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 appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of ap-pealability 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, 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 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.