UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6218
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
THADESE MOORE, SR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Margaret B. Seymour, District
Judge. (CR-97-839; CA-00-3101-5)
Submitted: August 18, 2004 Decided: September 7, 2004
Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thadese Moore, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. William Kenneth Witherspoon,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Thadese Moore, Sr., a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal
the district court’s orders denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)
motion concerning the court’s previous denial of his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 (2000) motion and denying his motion for reconsideration.
The district court ruled that Moore failed to show that relief was
warranted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). The orders are not
appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate
of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone,
369 F.3d 363, 370 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of appealability
will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner
satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists
would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that
any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also
debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336
(2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee,
252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). 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. 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.
- 2 -
DISMISSED
- 3 -