
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ruthven YOUNG, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Don Anthony Guerra, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ashberth Sherran Guerra, Defendant-Appellant.
    Nos. 06-8042, 06-8056, 06-8058.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: April 4, 2007.
    Decided: June 15, 2007.
    Ruthven Young, Don Anthony Guerra, Ashberth Sherran Guerra, Appellants Pro Se. Carlton R. Bourne, Jr., Alston Calhoun Badger, Jr., John Charles Duane, Bruce Howe Hendricks, Assistant United States Attorneys, Office of the United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WILLIAMS, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated cases, Ruthven Young, Don Anthony Guerra, and Ash-berth Sherran Guerra seek to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on their 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motions and their 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, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that the movants 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.  