[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
68 views3 pages

United States v. Anthony Moore, 4th Cir. (2013)

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Anthony Moore's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion for post-conviction relief and motion for reconsideration. The court determined that Moore did not make the requisite showing to warrant a certificate of appealability, as he did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would debate the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims or that the issues presented deserved encouragement to proceed further. The court independently reviewed the record and concluded that Moore failed to substantiate the denial of a constitutional right. Therefore, the court dismissed the appeal.

Uploaded by

Scribd Government Docs
Copyright
© Public Domain
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
68 views3 pages

United States v. Anthony Moore, 4th Cir. (2013)

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Anthony Moore's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion for post-conviction relief and motion for reconsideration. The court determined that Moore did not make the requisite showing to warrant a certificate of appealability, as he did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would debate the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims or that the issues presented deserved encouragement to proceed further. The court independently reviewed the record and concluded that Moore failed to substantiate the denial of a constitutional right. Therefore, the court dismissed the appeal.

Uploaded by

Scribd Government Docs
Copyright
© Public Domain
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7364

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


Plaintiff Appellee,
v.
ANTHONY MOORE, a/k/a Ant,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda Wright Allen, District
Judge. (2:02-cr-00225-AWA-9; 2:12-cv-00107-AWA)

Submitted:

December 14, 2012

Decided:

January 16, 2013

Before WILKINSON, KING, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Moore, Appellant Pro Se.


Assistant
United
States
Attorney,
Appellee.

Darryl James Mitchell,


Norfolk,
Virginia,
for

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:
Anthony
orders denying

Moore

relief

seeks
on

his

to

appeal

the

28

U.S.C.A.

district

2255

courts

(West

2012) motion and denying his motion to reconsider.

Supp.

The orders

are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a


certificate of appealability.
A

certificate

of

28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006).

appealability

will

not

issue

absent

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.


28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2) (2006).
relief

on

the

demonstrating
district

merits,
that

courts

debatable

or

When the district court denies

prisoner

reasonable

assessment

wrong.

satisfies

jurists

would

of

the

v.

McDaniel,

Slack

this

standard

find

constitutional
529

U.S.

by

that

the

claims

is

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

claim of the denial of a constitutional right.

debatable

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.


dispense

with

oral

argument

because

the

facts

and

We

legal

contentions

are

adequately

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

You might also like