UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-7050
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WILLIAM IVON TURNER, a/k/a William Ivon Bush,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 07-7222
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WILLIAM IVON TURNER, a/k/a William Ivon Bush,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James P. Jones, Chief District
Judge. (1:03-cr-00012-jpj; 7:06-cv-00198-jpj)
Submitted: February 29, 2008 Decided: March 7, 2008
Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Ivon Turner, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer Rebecca Bockhorst,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Abingdon, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, William Ivon Turner seeks
to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28
U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and denying his motions for
reconsideration. The orders are not appealable 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
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 Turner has not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate 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 -