UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-7051
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RANDOLF MOORE, a/k/a Randy, a/k/a Booney,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard,
Senior District Judge. (4:04-cv-00014-H; 4:95-cr-00041-H-7)
Submitted: November 13, 2012 Decided: November 15, 2012
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Randolf Moore, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker,
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Randolf Moore seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from
the judgment in his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012)
proceeding, and the subsequent Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to
alter or amend. In order for Moore to pursue this appeal, a
circuit justice or judge must issue a certificate of
appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (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). 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 motion 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 a certificate of appealability, deny Moore’s motion to
2
remand, 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
3