United States v. Moore , 232 F. App'x 291 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-6697
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ANTHONY MOORE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District
Judge. (2:02-cr-00225-JBF; 2:05-cv-00244-JFB)
Submitted: June 6, 2007 Decided: July 9, 2007
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anthony Moore, Appellant Pro Se. Darryl James Mitchell, Special
Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Anthony Moore seeks to appeal the district court’s orders
denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and his
subsequent motion to reconsider pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).
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 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484
(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have
independently reviewed the record and conclude that Moore has not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Moore’s motion
for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny
as moot Moore’s motions for abeyance and deny his motion to appoint
appellate counsel. Finally, 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 -