Russell Moore v. Robert Stevenson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [998661494-2]; denying Motion for transcript at government expense [998654822-2] Originating case number: 0:10-cv-01413-JMC. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998725912]. Mailed to: Russell Moore. [11-6915]

Appeal: 11-6915

Document: 14

Date Filed: 11/18/2011

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6915

RUSSELL DARRYL MOORE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
ROBERT STEVENSON, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill.
J. Michelle Childs, District
Judge. (0:10-cv-01413-JMC)

Submitted:

November 3, 2011

Decided:

November 18, 2011

Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Russell Darryl Moore, Appellant Pro Se.
Donald John Zelenka,
Deputy Assistant Attorney General, William Edgar Salter, III,
Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-6915

Document: 14

Date Filed: 11/18/2011

Page: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Russell
court’s

order

Darryl

accepting

Moore
the

seeks

to

appeal

recommendation

of

the
the

district

magistrate

judge and dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)
petition.
or

judge

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006).
issue

absent

“a

appealability.

28

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

of

showing

of

the

denial

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006).

of

a

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

Cockrell,

(2000);

(2003).

see

Miller-El

v.

537

U.S.

322,

336-38

When the district court denies relief on procedural

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive
procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a
debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right.
529 U.S. at 484-85.
and

conclude

that

Slack,

We have independently reviewed the record
Moore

has

not

made

the

requisite

showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss
the appeal.

We also deny the motions to authorize a transcript

at the Government’s expense and to appoint counsel.

We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
2

Appeal: 11-6915

Document: 14

adequately

Date Filed: 11/18/2011

presented

in

the

Page: 3 of 3

materials

before

the

court

and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

3