Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sharon Kay MOORE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-08-31
Citations: 332 F. App'x 153
Docket Number: No. 09-6139
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sharon Kay MOORE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 332
Pages: 153–154

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sharon Kay MOORE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-6139.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 20, 2009.
Decided: Aug. 31, 2009.
Sharon Kay Moore, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Calvin Moore, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding-precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Sharon Kay Moore seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2009) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). 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, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 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, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Moore has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certifícate 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.