UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-8023
KEITH LEMONT SANDERS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia
Department of Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 06-8050
KEITH LEMONT SANDERS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia
Department of Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (2:03-cv-00598-RAJ; 2:03-cv-411)
Submitted: April 25, 2007 Decided: May 18, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Keith Lemont Sanders, Appellant Pro Se. Margaret Winslow Reed,
Steven Andrew Witmer, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Keith Lemont Sanders seeks
to appeal the district court’s orders denying his Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b) motions for reconsideration of the district court’s orders
denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petitions. The
orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues
a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000);
Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). 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
(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 Sanders has not made the
requisite showing in either case. Accordingly, although we grant
Sanders’s motion to amend his informal brief, we deny certificates
of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis in each
case, and dismiss the appeals. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in
- 3 -
the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 4 -