Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-19-06859/USCOURTS-ca4-19-06859-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Corey A. Moore
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-6859

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

COREY A. MOORE,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. 

Theodore D. Chuang, District Judge. (8:10-cr-00648-TDC-1; 8:15-cv-03992-TDC)

Submitted: April 21, 2020 Decided: April 30, 2020

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brian L. Stekloff, WILKINSON WALSH, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-6859 Doc: 10 Filed: 04/30/2020 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Corey Moore seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 

60 motion for relief from the district court’s prior order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255 (2018) 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) (2018); see generally United 

States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 400 & n.7 (4th Cir. 2015). 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) (2018). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner 

satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s 

assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 

759, 773-74 (2017). 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. Gonzalez v. 

Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). 

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 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED

USCA4 Appeal: 19-6859 Doc: 10 Filed: 04/30/2020 Pg: 2 of 2