US v. Devonne Moore

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [999963538-2]. Originating case number: 4:12-cr-00020-FL-1, 4:15-cv-00164-FL. Copies to all parties and the district court/agenc. [1000054255]. [16-7046]

Appeal: 16-7046

Doc: 21

Filed: 04/03/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7046

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DEVONNE LAMAR MOORE, a/k/a Butter, a/k/a Butterbean,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Greenville. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (4:12-cr-00020-FL-1; 4:15-cv-00164FL)

Submitted: March 30, 2017

Decided: April 3, 2017

Before TRAXLER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eric Joseph Brignac, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7046

Doc: 21

Filed: 04/03/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Devonne Lamar Moore seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on
his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and he has filed a motion for a certificate of
appealability. A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing
of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). 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 (2000); see MillerEl 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 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 Moore’s motion for a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

2