UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-6373
JACK MOORE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
SIDNEY HARKLEROAD,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen,
Senior District Judge. (1:06-cv-00255-GCM)
Submitted: April 23, 2009 Decided: May 5, 2009
Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jack Moore, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III,
Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jack Moore seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of
the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a
circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363,
369 (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) (2006). A
prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that
reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the
constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or
wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district
court is likewise debatable. 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, 683-84 (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.
DISMISSED
2