United States v. Garrison ( 2003 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6010
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
LAWRENCE BERNARD GARRISON,
Defendant - Appellant,
No. 03-6011
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
LAMONT HAROLD GARRISON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (CR-98-132, CA-01-647-AM, CA-01-773-AM)
Submitted: May 29, 2003 Decided: June 3, 2003
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
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.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
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, 123 S. Ct. 1029, 1040 (2003);
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d
676, 683 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941 (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
3