US v. James Moore

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case numbers: 1:04-cr-00190-ELH-1, 1:11-cv-01655-ELH. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999064910]. [12-7012]

Appeal: 12-7012

Doc: 24

Filed: 03/15/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED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

Before TRAXLER,
Judges.

Chief

Judge,

Decided:

and

KING

and

March 15, 2013

GREGORY,

Circuit

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-7012

Doc: 24

Filed: 03/15/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
James Moore seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying

relief

motion.

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or

judge

issues

on

a

his

absent

U.S.C.A.

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006).
issue

28

“a

of

(West

Supp.

appealability.

28

2012)

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

§ 2255

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 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.
dispense

with

oral

argument

because

2

the

facts

and

We

legal

Appeal: 12-7012

Doc: 24

contentions

are

Filed: 03/15/2013

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3