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: 2005-03-10
Citations: 123 F. App'x 108
Docket Number: No. 04-7525
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Glenn Carson MOORE, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 123
Pages: 108–109

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Glenn Carson MOORE, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 04-7525.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 11, 2005.
Decided March 10, 2005.
Glenn Carson Moore, Appellant pro se. Banumathi Rangarajan, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Glenn Carson Moore, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his Fed.R.Crim.P. 33 motion, which the district court correctly construed as a 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 certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court 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 both that the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See 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 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Moore has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny the motion for a certificate of appeal-ability 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