United States v. James Moore ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 12-7012
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    JAMES MOORE, a/k/a Duffy, a/k/a Fat James,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore.    Ellen L. Hollander, District Judge.
    (1:04-cr-00190-ELH-1; 1:11-cv-01655-ELH)
    Submitted:   March 4, 2013                  Decided:    March 15, 2013
    Before TRAXLER,   Chief   Judge,   and   KING   and   GREGORY,   Circuit
    Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Kenneth    Scott   Williamson,    FREEDOM   FOUNDATION,   PLLC,
    Goodlettsville, Tennessee, for Appellant. John Francis Purcell,
    Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    James Moore seeks to appeal the district court’s order
    denying    relief        on    his   
    28 U.S.C.A. § 2255
        (West    Supp.     2012)
    motion.    The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or
    judge     issues     a        certificate      of    appealability.            
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(1)(B) (2006).               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) (2006).                 When the
    district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies
    this    standard     by       demonstrating        that   reasonable       jurists     would
    find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional
    claims is debatable or wrong.                  Slack v. McDaniel, 
    529 U.S. 473
    ,
    484    (2000);     see    Miller-El       v.   Cockrell,      
    537 U.S. 322
    ,     336-38
    (2003).     When 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.                              Slack,
    
    529 U.S. at 484-85
    .
    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
    2
    contentions   are   adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before
    this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 12-7012

Judges: Traxler, King, Gregory

Filed Date: 3/15/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024