United States v. Moore

56 F. App'x 182
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. Moore. Read the opinion of the Court — 1 F. App'x 190
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided February 26, 2003·No. 02-7761·Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Arthur Paul Moore, Jr., a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge to deny relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding 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 for claims addressed by a district court on the merits absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000); see Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941, 122 S.Ct. 318, 151 L.Ed.2d 237 (2001). We have reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Moore has not made the requisite showing. See United States v. Moore, Nos. CR-98-93; CA-01-680-1 (M.D.N.C. filed Oct. 16, 2002 & entered Oct. 17, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

United States v. Moore, 56 F. App'x 182 (4th Cir. 2003).

56 F. App'x 182 (United States v. Moore) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Rose v. Lee
252 F.3d 676 (Fourth Circuit, 2001)
Martinez-Ceballoz v. United States
534 U.S. 941 (Supreme Court, 2001)