Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07319/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07319-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James Hardy
Appellee
Sebastian X. Moore
Appellant
State of North Carolina

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7319

SEBASTIAN MOORE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

JAMES HARDY,

Respondent - Appellee,

and

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,

Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III,

District Judge. (5:06-hc-02193)

Submitted: December 13, 2007 Decided: December 20, 2007

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sebastian X. Moore, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III,

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-7319 Doc: 21 Filed: 12/20/2007 Pg: 1 of 2
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Sebastian X. Moore seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Moore has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny the motion to

prepare a transcript at government expense, deny the motion for

sanctions, 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 the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED

Appeal: 07-7319 Doc: 21 Filed: 12/20/2007 Pg: 2 of 2