US v. Michael Moore
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to extend filing time [999241762-2]; terminating Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [999244898-2]. Originating case number: 3:08-cr-00389-HEH-1,3:10-cv-00659-HEH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999245658]. Mailed to: Michael Moore. [13-7264]
Appeal: 13-7264
Doc: 7
Filed: 11/22/2013
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7264
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL L. MOORE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:08-cr-00389-HEH-1; 3:10-cv-00659-HEH)
Submitted:
November 19, 2013
Before WYNN and
Circuit Judge.
FLOYD,
Circuit
Decided: November 22, 2013
Judges,
and
HAMILTON,
Senior
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael L. Moore, Appellant Pro Se.
Assistant United States Attorney,
Appellee.
Angela Mastandrea-Miller,
Richmond, Virginia, for
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 13-7264
Doc: 7
Filed: 11/22/2013
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Michael L. Moore seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2013)
motion.
judge
The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or
issues
a
certificate
§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006).
issue
absent
“a
of
28
U.S.C.
A certificate of appealability will not
substantial
constitutional right.”
appealability.
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.
deny
Moore’s
certificate
motion
of
for
an
extension
appealability,
deny
appealability, and dismiss the appeal.
of
Accordingly, we
time
a
to
request
certificate
a
of
We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
2
Appeal: 13-7264
Doc: 7
Filed: 11/22/2013
Pg: 3 of 3
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3
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?