Case Name: James Alexander MOORE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Eddie L. PEARSON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2018-01-03
Citations: 707 F. App'x 781
Docket Number: No. 17-6940
Parties: James Alexander MOORE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Eddie L. PEARSON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before DIAZ, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 707
Pages: 781–782

Head Matter:
James Alexander MOORE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Eddie L. PEARSON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 17-6940
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: November 30, 2017
Decided: January 3, 2018
James Alexander Moore, Appellant Pro Se! Robert H. Anderson, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before DIAZ, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James Alexander Moore seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the order denying relief on his 28 U.S.O. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 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) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Moore has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Moore's motion for a certifícate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in for-ma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED