United States of America v. Elena Von Bressensdorf, a/k/a Elena Bisheff, a/k/a Baroness

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7730
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ELENA VON BRESSENSDORF, a/k/a Elena Bisheff,
a/k/a Baroness,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 03-7731
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
OTTO VON BRESSENSDORF, a/k/a Baron Otto Von
Bressensdorf, a/k/a Baron, a/k/a Ottone Eugeno
Camelio Bresselhau,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District
Judge. (CR-98-14; CA-02-223; CA-02-224)
Submitted: February 25, 2004 Decided: March 10, 2004

-- 1 of 3 --

- 2 -
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Elena Von Bressensdorf, Otto Von Bressensdorf, Appellants Pro Se.
Andrew Gerald McBride, WILEY, REIN & FIELDING, L.L.P., Washington,
D.C.; Gurney Wingate Grant, II, James Brien Comey, Jr., OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia; Dana Johannes
Finberg, MCCANDLISH HOLTON, P.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Otto and Elena von
Bressensdorf seek to appeal the district court’s order denying
their 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motions. The von Bressensdorfs
cannot appeal unless a circuit judge or justice issues a
certificate of appealability, and 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 § 2255
movant meets 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, 537 U.S. 322,
326 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v.
Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently
reviewed the record and conclude the von Bressensdorfs have not
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 of 3 --