US v. Karl Moore, Sr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:02-cr-00217-RAJ-JEB-1,2:07-cv-00463-RAJ Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998960011]. Mailed to: Karl E. Moore, Sr.. [12-7211]

Appeal: 12-7211

Doc: 7

Filed: 10/16/2012

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7211

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KARL E. MOORE, SR.,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (2:02-cr-00217-RAJ-JEB-1; 2:07-cv-00463-RAJ)

Submitted:

October 11, 2012

Decided:

October 16, 2012

Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Karl E. Moore, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.
Laura Marie Everhart,
Assistant
United
States
Attorney,
Norfolk,
Virginia,
for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-7211

Doc: 7

Filed: 10/16/2012

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Karl
court’s

E.

order

Moore,

denying

Sr.,

his

seeks

Fed.

R.

to

appeal

Civ.

P.

the

60(b)

district

motion

for

reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on
his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion.
not

appealable

unless

a

circuit

certificate of appealability.
A certificate

of

justice

or

The order is

judge

issues

a

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006).

appealability

will

not

issue

absent

“a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006).
relief

on

the

demonstrating
district

merits,
that

court’s

debatable

or

a

When the district court denies

prisoner

reasonable

assessment

wrong.

satisfies

jurists

would

of

the

v.

McDaniel,

Slack

this

standard

find

U.S.

that

the

claims

constitutional
529

by

is

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

claim of the denial of a constitutional right.

a

debatable

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: 12-7211

Doc: 7

Filed: 10/16/2012

Pg: 3 of 3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

3