UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

CHRISTOPHER MOORE, JR., 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 14-5110 

(D.C. Nos. 4:98-CR-0078-CVE-1 & 

4:14-CV-00386-CVE-TLW) 

(N.D. Okla.)

 

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*

 

Before KELLY, EBEL, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges. 

 

 Christopher Moore, Jr., proceeding pro se, seeks a certificate of appealability 

(COA) to appeal from the district court’s determination that his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 

motion was an unauthorized second or successive § 2255 motion that the court lacked 

jurisdiction to consider. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h); In re Cline, 531 F.3d 1249, 1251 

(10th Cir. 2008) (per curiam). We deny a COA and dismiss this matter. 

 Mr. Moore (who refers to himself as Christopher Moore-Bey) was sentenced to 

950 months of imprisonment for bank robbery, carjacking, and using a firearm in 

connection with a crime of violence. See United States v. Moore, 198 F.3d 793, 794 

 

* This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the 

case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its 

persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

January 6, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court
- 2 - 

(10th Cir. 1999). He since has filed multiple § 2255 motions in the district court. 

See United States v. Moore, 432 F. App’x 762, 763-64 (10th Cir. 2011) (setting forth 

filing history). 

 On July 10, 2014, Mr. Moore filed a new § 2255 motion and affidavit 

complaining about his counsel’s performance on direct appeal. The district court 

concluded that the motion attacked his convictions and therefore was another 

unauthorized successive § 2255 motion that the court lacked jurisdiction to consider. 

It declined to transfer the motion to this court and dismissed it for lack of 

jurisdiction. 

 Mr. Moore must obtain a COA to appeal, see 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B), 

meaning that he must show “that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the 

petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of 

reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural 

ruling,” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). His materials generally fail to 

address the procedural aspect of the district court’s decision, instead focusing on the 

validity of his convictions and sentence. But no reasonable jurist could conclude that 

the district court erred in (1) determining that the motion was an unauthorized second 

or successive § 2255 motion or (2) dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction. See Cline, 

531 F.3d at 1251-52. 

 Liberally construing Mr. Moore’s COA materials, it appears that, alternatively, 

he may be seeking authorization for his motion under § 2255(h)(2), which allows a 
- 3 - 

successive § 2255 motion that relies on “a new rule of constitutional law, made 

retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously 

unavailable.” To the extent he seeks authorization, we deny it. 

 Mr. Moore cites Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013); 

Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, 560 U.S. 563 (2010); Castillo v. United States, 

530 U.S. 120 (2000); Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614 (1998); and Bailey v. 

United States, 516 U.S. 137 (1995). None of these decisions satisfies § 2255(h)(2). 

Alleyne did not announce a retroactively applicable rule. See In re Payne, 733 F.3d 

1027, 1029-30 (10th Cir. 2013). Carachuri-Rosendo is an immigration decision 

mainly involving statutory interpretation, and Mr. Moore fails to explain how it 

announced a retroactive new rule of constitutional law. Finally, none of the 

remaining decisions created a “new rule” that was “previously unavailable” to 

Mr. Moore: Castillo was decided before he filed his first § 2255 motion, and Bousley

and Bailey were decided before his conviction. 

 The request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The request for a COA is 

denied and this matter is dismissed. To the extent that Mr. Moore alternatively seeks 

authorization under § 2255(h), the request is denied. 

 Entered for the Court 

 ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk