United States v. Moore , 258 F. App'x 557 ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 07-7319
    SEBASTIAN MOORE,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    JAMES HARDY,
    Respondent - Appellee,
    and
    STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,
    Respondent.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III,
    District Judge. (5:06-hc-02193)
    Submitted:   December 13, 2007         Decided:     December 20, 2007
    Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Sebastian X. Moore, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III,
    NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Sebastian X. Moore seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition.              The
    order is 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 the motion to
    prepare a transcript at government expense, deny the motion for
    sanctions, 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
    - 2 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-7319

Citation Numbers: 258 F. App'x 557

Judges: Niemeyer, Motz, Shedd

Filed Date: 12/20/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024