Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Glenn Carson MOORE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-08-12
Citations: 71 F. App'x 246
Docket Number: No. 03-6299
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Glenn Carson MOORE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 71
Pages: 246–246

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Glenn Carson MOORE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-6299.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted July 18, 2003.
Decided Aug. 12, 2003.
Glenn Carson Moore, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Glenn Carson Moore, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find both that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1040, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941, 122 S.Ct. 318, 151 L.Ed.2d 237 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Moore has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny the motion to construe the informal brief as a certificate of appealability, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). 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.