US v. Opio Moore

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:08-cr-00203-RWT-1,8:13-cv-03589-RWT Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999842077]. Mailed to: Opio Moore. [15-7917]

Appeal: 15-7917

Doc: 11

Filed: 06/03/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7917

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
OPIO DIARRA MOORE, a/k/a O,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge.
(8:08-cr-00203-RWT-1; 8:13-cv-03589-RWT)

Submitted:

May 31, 2016

Decided:

June 3, 2016

Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Opio Diarra Moore, Appellant Pro Se.
Deborah A. Johnston,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland; Michael
Richard Pauze, Assistant United States Attorney, Washington,
D.C.; Christen Anne Sproule, Assistant United States Attorney,
Los Angeles, California, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7917

Doc: 11

Filed: 06/03/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Opio
order

Diarra

denying

Moore

relief

seeks

on

his

to
28

appeal

the

U.S.C.

district

§ 2255

court’s

(2012)

motion.

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
issue

absent

“a

of

appealability.

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

28

showing

of

the

denial

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).

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.
a

certificate

dispense

with

of

appealability

oral

argument

and

dismiss

because

2

Accordingly, we deny

the

the

appeal.

facts

and

We
legal

Appeal: 15-7917

Doc: 11

contentions

are

Filed: 06/03/2016

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3