Billy Sanders v. US, No. 08-8277 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8277 BILLY JOE SANDERS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent -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: Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. August 3, 2009 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, Billy Joe Sanders and Tammie Raines Sanders seek to appeal the district court s orders denying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 judge issues a certificate U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). not issue absent constitutional prisoner a satisfies reasonable jurists constitutional 28 this would claims by appealability. 28 A certificate of appealability will substantial right. of showing U.S.C. the the denial § 2253(c)(2) standard find of by that district (2006). demonstrating any assessment court is of a A that of the 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 certificates dispense of with the requisite appealability oral argument showing. and Accordingly, dismiss because the the we deny appeals. We facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
