United States v. Moore

123 F. App'x 111

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: March 10, 2005
• Docket: 04-7525
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7525

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

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. (CR-98-68)

Submitted: February 11, 2005 Decided: March 10, 2005

Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Glenn Carson Moore, Appellant Pro Se. Banumathi Rangarajan, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Glenn Carson Moore, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal

the district court’s order denying relief on his Fed. R. Crim. P. 33

motion, which the district court correctly construed as a 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 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 both that the

district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by

the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v.

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (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 the motion for

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

- 2 -