Court Opinion

ID: 4234081
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-01-03 20:00:25.566911+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:53.838302
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 17-6940

JAMES ALEXANDER MOORE,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

EDDIE L. PEARSON, Warden,

                    Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:14-cv-00483-CMH-MSN)

Submitted: November 30, 2017                                      Decided: January 3, 2018

Before DIAZ, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Alexander Moore, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.C.

§ 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 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38

(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.

       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, deny leave to proceed in forma 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

                                             2