UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-7012
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMES MOORE, a/k/a Duffy, a/k/a Fat James,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Ellen L. Hollander, District Judge.
(1:04-cr-00190-ELH-1; 1:11-cv-01655-ELH)
Submitted: March 4, 2013 Decided: March 15, 2013
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and GREGORY, Circuit
Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kenneth Scott Williamson, FREEDOM FOUNDATION, PLLC,
Goodlettsville, Tennessee, for Appellant. John Francis Purcell,
Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James Moore seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012)
motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or
judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). 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 and dismiss the appeal. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3