Frederick Moore v. Warden John Wolfe

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6270

FREDERICK JAMES MOORE,

Petitioner – Appellant,

WARDEN JOHN WOLFE; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF
MARYLAND,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District
Judge. (1:11-cv-01014-WDQ)

Submitted: July 1, 2014 Decided: August 8, 2014

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Julia Mara Kazaks, SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM, LLP,
Palo Alto, California; Melissa Renee Middleton, Thomas Arthur
Parnham, Jr., Donald Paul Salzman, SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER
& FLOM, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Edward John
Kelley, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Frederick James Moore seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012)

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 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) (2012). 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 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition 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. Accordingly, we

deny Moore’s 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

2
materials before this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED