Court Opinion

ID: 9959202
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-10 21:00:37.239308+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:39.007338
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6066      Doc: 10         Filed: 04/09/2024    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6066

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        TERRI MOORE,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:18-cr-00628-JFA-3; 3:21-
        cv-01878-JFA)

        Submitted: January 29, 2024                                       Decided: April 9, 2024

        Before AGEE and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Terri Moore, Appellant Pro Se. Katherine Hollingsworth Flynn, Assistant United States
        Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Florence, South Carolina,
        for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6066         Doc: 10       Filed: 04/09/2024     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Terri Moore seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on her 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 showing that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment

        of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17

        (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must show

        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