Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony MOORE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-07-09
Citations: 232 F. App'x 291
Docket Number: No. 06-6697
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Anthony MOORE, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 232
Pages: 291–292

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Anthony MOORE, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 06-6697.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 6, 2007.
Decided: July 9, 2007.
Anthony Moore, Appellant Pro Se.
Darryl James Mitchell, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Anthony Moore seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and his subsequent motion to reconsider pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). The orders are not appealable 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 any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dis-positive 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 Moore's motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny as moot Moore's motions for abeyance and deny his motion to appoint appellate counsel. Finally, 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.