US v. Anthony Moore, No. 12-7364 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7364 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. ANTHONY MOORE, a/k/a Ant, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda Wright Allen, District Judge. (2:02-cr-00225-AWA-9; 2:12-cv-00107-AWA) Submitted: December 14, 2012 Decided: January 16, 2013 Before WILKINSON, KING, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Moore, Appellant Pro Se. Assistant United States Attorney, Appellee. Darryl James Mitchell, Norfolk, Virginia, for Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Anthony orders denying Moore relief seeks on to 28 his appeal the U.S.C.A. district § 2255 court s (West 2012) motion and denying his motion to reconsider. Supp. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. A certificate of 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). relief on the demonstrating district merits, that court s debatable or a When the district court denies prisoner reasonable assessment wrong. satisfies jurists would of the v. McDaniel, Slack this standard find U.S. that the claims constitutional 529 by is 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 motion states claim of the denial of a constitutional right. a debatable 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
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
