Court Opinion

ID: 4708055
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-07-30 19:02:53.661217+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:01:52.234893
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                       No. 19-7879

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                     Plaintiff - Appellee,

              v.

MICHAEL LAMONT MOORE,

                     Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:10-cr-00208-RJC-DSC-4; 3:15-cv-
00336-RJC)

Submitted: July 1, 2021                                           Decided: July 30, 2021

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, KEENAN, Circuit Judge, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ann Loraine Hester, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA,
INC., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

       Michael L. Moore seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ.

P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255

motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of

appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment

of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74

(2017). 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S.

134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

       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 this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

                                                                                DISMISSED

                                              2