US v. Sharon Kay Moore

Filing 920090831

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6139 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SHARON KAY MOORE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (2:04-cr-00004-JBF-TEM-1; 2:07-cv-00590-JBF) Submitted: August 20, 2009 Decided: August 31, 2009 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sharon Kay Moore, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Calvin Moore, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Sharon Kay Moore seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 (West Supp. 2009) motion. judge The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1) (2006). issue absent "a A certificate of appealability will not showing U.S.C. standard find the that of the denial of a A that the or substantial 28 constitutional prisoner reasonable right." this would by 2253(c)(2) by any (2006). satisfies jurists demonstrating assessment is of constitutional claims district court debatable 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 of requisite showing. and Accordingly, dismiss the the we deny a We legal certificate dispense appealability oral argument appeal. and with because facts contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?