United States v. Glenn Moore

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6432 Doc: 5 Filed: 07/18/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-6432

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

GLENN CARSON MOORE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:98-cr-00068-BO-1; 5:24-cv-00464-BO)

Submitted: July 8, 2025 Decided: July 18, 2025

Before GREGORY, AGEE, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Glenn Carson Moore, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-6432 Doc: 5 Filed: 07/18/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Glenn Carson Moore seeks to appeal the district court’s April 7, 2025, order

granting the Government’s motion to dismiss and dismissing Moore’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255

motion as successive and unauthorized. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). 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). When, as here, the district court denies relief on procedural

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is

debatable and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right.

Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484 (2000)).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Moore has not made

the requisite showing. We note, however, that on June 11, 2025—after the district court

dismissed the underlying unauthorized § 2255 motion—we granted Moore’s 28 U.S.C.

§ 2244 motion for authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion. See In re Moore,

No. 25-149 (4th Cir. June 11, 2025) (unpublished order). Accordingly, although we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the instant appeal, Moore now has the necessary

authorization under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244, 2255(h), to pursue his claim in the district court.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED