Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Malik Montrease MOORE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-08-30
Citations: 393 F. App'x 101
Docket Number: No. 10-6826
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Malik Montrease MOORE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 393
Pages: 101–102

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Malik Montrease MOORE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-6826.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 19, 2010.
Decided: Aug. 30, 2010.
Malik Montrease Moore, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas A. O’Malley, Office of the United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Malik Montrease Moore seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2010) motion and his motion for reconsideration. The orders are 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). 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 motion 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 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.