UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7525
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
GLENN CARSON MOORE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District
Judge. (CR-98-68)
Submitted: February 11, 2005 Decided: March 10, 2005
Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Glenn Carson Moore, Appellant Pro Se. Banumathi Rangarajan,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Glenn Carson Moore, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal
the district court’s order denying relief on his Fed. R. Crim. P. 33
motion, which the district court correctly construed as a motion
filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken
from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice
or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue
for claims addressed by a district court 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 both that the
district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is
debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by
the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v.
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (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 the motion for
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.
DISMISSED
- 2 -