UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6379
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
TERRANCE LAMONT MOORE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Malcolm J. Howard,
District Judge. (CR-98-13; CA-04-15-4-H)
Submitted: July 9, 2004 Decided: August 11, 2004
Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Terrance Lamont Moore, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward Skiver,
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Terrance Lamont Moore seeks to appeal the district
court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion as
successive. We may not review this order unless Moore establishes
entitlement to a certificate of appealability pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c) (2000). See Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 374 n.7 (4th
Cir. 2004). This court may grant a certificate of appealability
only if the appellant makes a substantial showing of the denial of
a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). Where, as
here, a district court dismisses a § 2255 motion on procedural
grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the
petitioner can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason would
find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the
denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason
would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in
its procedural ruling.’” Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.
2001) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). We
have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Moore has
not made the requisite showing. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537
U.S. 322, 336 (2003).
We construe Moore’s notice of appeal and informal brief
on appeal as an application to file a second or successive § 2255
motion. See United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th
Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a second or
- 2 -
successive § 2255 motion, a movant must assert claims based on
either: (1) a new rule of constitutional law, previously
unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on
collateral review; or (2) newly discovered evidence that would be
sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no
reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the
offense. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) (2000). Moore’s claims do not
satisfy either of these conditions. Therefore, we decline to
authorize Moore to file a successive § 2255 motion. Accordingly,
we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We
deny Moore’s motion to remand for an evidentiary hearing. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 3 -