US v. James Moore, No. 12-7012 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7012 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JAMES MOORE, a/k/a Duffy, a/k/a Fat James, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Ellen L. Hollander, District Judge. (1:04-cr-00190-ELH-1; 1:11-cv-01655-ELH) Submitted: March 4, 2013 Before TRAXLER, Judges. Chief Judge, Decided: and KING and March 15, 2013 GREGORY, Circuit Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kenneth Scott Williamson, FREEDOM FOUNDATION, PLLC, Goodlettsville, Tennessee, for Appellant. John Francis Purcell, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: James Moore seeks to appeal the district court s order denying relief motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues on a his absent U.S.C.A. certificate § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). issue 28 a of (West Supp. appealability. 28 2012) U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right. § 2255 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. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. dispense with oral argument because 2 the facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3