James Alexander Moore v. Eddie L. Pearson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999989730-2]; denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [999951816-2] Originating case number: 1:14-cv-00483-CMH-MSN Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000043202]. Mailed to: James Alexander Moore SUSSEX II STATE PRISON 24427 Musselwhite Drive Waverly, VA 23891-2222. [16-7440]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-7440 Doc: 19 Filed: 03/16/2017 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-7440 JAMES ALEXANDER MOORE, Petitioner - Appellant, v. EDDIE L. PEARSON, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:14-cv-00483-CMH-MSN) Submitted: March 14, 2017 Decided: March 16, 2017 Before FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Alexander Moore, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 16-7440 Doc: 19 Filed: 03/16/2017 Pg: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: James Alexander Moore seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” § 2253(c)(2) (2012). 28 U.S.C. 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 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 petition 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, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 2 Appeal: 16-7440 Doc: 19 adequately Filed: 03/16/2017 presented in the Pg: 3 of 3 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?