UNITED STATES CO URT 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 certificat e of appealability (COA) to appeal from the district court’ s determination that his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion was an unauthorized second or successi ve § 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 cu riam). We deny a COA a nd dismiss this matter. Mr. Moore (who refers to himself as Ch ristopher Moore-Bey) was sentenced to 950 months of imprisonment for bank robbe ry, 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* This order is not binding precedent excep t under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and colla teral estoppel.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 file d 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 ther efore was another unauthorized successive § 2255 mo tion that the court lacked jurisdiction to consider. It declined to transfer the motion to this court a nd 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 wh ether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling,” Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Hi s materials generally fail to address the procedural aspect of the distri ct court’s decision, in stead focusing on the validity of his convictions a nd 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) dism issing it for lack of jurisdiction. See Cline , 531 F.3d at 1251-52. Liberally construing Mr. Moore’s COA mate rials, it appears th at, alternatively, he may be seeking authori zation for his motion under § 22 55(h)(2), which allows a- 3 - successive § 2255 motion that relies on “a ne w rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable.” To the extent he s eeks 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 thes e decisions satisfies § 2255(h)(2). Alleyne did not announce a retroac tively 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 cons titutional law. Fina lly, none of the remaining decisions created a “new rule” that was “previously unavailable” to
Mr. Moore: Castillo was decided before he file d his first § 2255 motion, and Bousley and Bailey were decided befo re his conviction. The request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The request for a COA is denied and this matter is dism issed. To the extent that Mr. Moore alternatively seeks authorization under § 2255(h) , the request is denied.

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk