US v. Michael Moore, No. 13-7264 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7264 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MICHAEL L. MOORE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:08-cr-00389-HEH-1; 3:10-cv-00659-HEH) Submitted: November 19, 2013 Before WYNN and Circuit Judge. FLOYD, Circuit Decided: November 22, 2013 Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael L. Moore, Appellant Pro Se. Assistant United States Attorney, Appellee. Angela Mastandrea-Miller, Richmond, Virginia, for Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michael L. Moore seeks to appeal the district court s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2013) motion. judge The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or issues a certificate § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). issue absent a of 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right. appealability. 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. deny Moore s certificate motion of for an extension appealability, deny appealability, and dismiss the appeal. of Accordingly, we time a to request certificate a of We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 2 presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3