Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06565/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06565-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Christopher C. Moore
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6565

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CHRISTOPHER MOORE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap. James P. Jones, District 

Judge. (2:11-cr-00004-JPJ-1; 2:15-cv-80792-JPJ-RSB)

Submitted: June 18, 2015 Decided: June 23, 2015

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher C. Moore, Appellant Pro Se. Zachary T. Lee, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia; Kartic Padmanabhan, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6565 Doc: 5 Filed: 06/23/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Christopher Moore seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

granting reconsideration and dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255 (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) (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 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 contentions are 

Appeal: 15-6565 Doc: 5 Filed: 06/23/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-6565 Doc: 5 Filed: 06/23/2015 Pg: 3 of 3