United States v. Moore

105 F. App'x 524

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6218

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

THADESE MOORE, SR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CR-97-839; CA-00-3101-5)

Submitted: August 18, 2004 Decided: September 7, 2004

Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thadese Moore, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. William Kenneth Witherspoon, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:

Thadese Moore, Sr., a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal

the district court’s orders denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)

motion concerning the court’s previous denial of his 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 (2000) motion and denying his motion for reconsideration.

The district court ruled that Moore failed to show that relief was

warranted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). The orders are not

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate

of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone,

369 F.3d 363, 370 (4th Cir. 2004). 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 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, 336

(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 that Moore has not made the requisite

showing. 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.

- 2 - DISMISSED

- 3 -