United States of America v. Allen Jett, a/k/a Al

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-6952
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ALLEN JETT, a/k/a Al,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 06-6953
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ANTOINE DEPAUL MARSHALL, a/k/a Chim Chim,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District
Judge. (1:96-cr-00458-WMN; 1:04-cv-03791-WMN; 1:04-cv-03792-WMN)
Submitted: March 29, 2007 Decided: April 3, 2007
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

-- 1 of 3 --

- 2 -
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas Turner Ruffin, Jr., Washington, D.C., for Appellants. Jamie
M. Bennett, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Allen Jett and Antoine
Marshall seek to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief
on their 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motions, and their motions for
reconsideration filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). 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 neither Jett
nor Marshall has made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny
certificates of appealability and dismiss the appeals. We further
deny the pending motions for the appointment of counsel. 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 of 3 --