Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Moore, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    13 views2 pages
    Demar Lamont Moore, a federal prisoner, appealed the district court's denial of his motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, finding that Moore did not make a substantial showing that denial of a constitutional right occurred. To obtain a certificate of appealability required to appeal the denial of a § 2255 motion, a prisoner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the constitutional claims debatable and that any procedural rulings by the district court were also debatable or wrong. The Fourth Circuit independently reviewed the record and concluded Moore did not meet this standard.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2004-09-21 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 03-7363

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Demar Lamont Moore, a federal prisoner, appealed the district court's denial of his motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, finding that Moore did not make a substantial showing that denial of a constitutional right occurred. To obtain a certificate of appealability required to appeal the denial of a § 2255 motion, a prisoner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the constitutional claims debatable and that any procedural rulings by the district court were also debatable or wrong. The Fourth Circuit independently reviewed the record and concluded Moore did not meet this standard.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    13 views2 pages

    United States v. Moore, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Demar Lamont Moore, a federal prisoner, appealed the district court's denial of his motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, finding that Moore did not make a substantial showing that denial of a constitutional right occurred. To obtain a certificate of appealability required to appeal the denial of a § 2255 motion, a prisoner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the constitutional claims debatable and that any procedural rulings by the district court were also debatable or wrong. The Fourth Circuit independently reviewed the record and concluded Moore did not meet this standard.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 03-7363

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    DEMAR LAMONT MOORE,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CR95-170; CA-03-1954)

    Submitted:

    July 21, 2004

    Decided:

    September 21, 2004

    Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Demar Lamont Moore, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Demar Lamont Moore, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal
    the district courts order denying relief on his motion filed under
    28 U.S.C. 2255 (2000).

    An appeal may not be taken from the final

    order in a 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge


    issues a certificate of appealability.
    (2000).

    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1)

    A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims

    addressed by a district court absent a substantial showing of the


    denial of a constitutional right.

    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2) (2000).

    A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable


    jurists

    would

    find

    both

    that

    his

    constitutional

    claims

    are

    debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the


    district court are also debatable or wrong.

    See Miller-El v.

    Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.
    473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).
    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

    - 2 -

    You might also like