Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christopher Lee MOODY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-12-02
Citations: 156 F. App'x 584
Docket Number: No. 05-6756
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Christopher Lee MOODY, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 156
Pages: 584–585

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Christopher Lee MOODY, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-6756.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 22, 2005.
Decided: Dec. 2, 2005.
Christopher Lee Moody, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa Blue Boggs, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Christopher Lee Moody seeks to appeal the district court's order adopting the recommendation of a magistrate judge and denying 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 certificate of appealability will not issue 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 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, 336, 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 Moody has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate 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
We do not address Moody's illegal vehicle stop claim as this claim is raised for the first time on appeal. See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir.1993) (holding that issues raised for the first time on appeal are generally waived absent exceptional circumstances).