Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Moore v. Harkleroad, 4th Cir. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    7 views2 pages
    1) Jack Moore appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. 2) The Fourth Circuit determined that Moore did not make the requisite showing to obtain a certificate of appealability, which is required to appeal the denial of a § 2254 petition. 3) As a result, the Fourth Circuit denied Moore's request to proceed in forma pauperis, denied his application for a certificate of appealability, and dismissed his appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2007-07-20 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 07-6250

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1) Jack Moore appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. 2) The Fourth Circuit determined that Moore did not make the requisite showing to obtain a certificate of appealability, which is required to appeal the denial of a § 2254 petition. 3) As a result, the Fourth Circuit denied Moore's request to proceed in forma pauperis, denied his application for a certificate of appealability, and dismissed his appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    Moore v. Harkleroad, 4th Cir. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Jack Moore appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. 2) The Fourth Circuit determined that Moore did not make the requisite showing to obtain a certificate of appealability, which is required to appeal the denial of a § 2254 petition. 3) As a result, the Fourth Circuit denied Moore's request to proceed in forma pauperis, denied his application for a certificate of appealability, and dismissed his appeal.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 07-6250

    JACK MOORE,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    SIDNEY HARKLEROAD,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Senior
    District Judge. (1:06-cv-00255)

    Submitted:

    July 11, 2007

    Decided:

    July 20, 2007

    Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    JACK MOORE, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge III, NORTH
    CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Jack Moore seeks to appeal the district courts order
    denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. 2254 (2000) petition.

    The order

    is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a


    certificate of appealability.

    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1) (2000).

    certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial


    showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

    2253(c)(2)

    (2000).

    demonstrating

    that

    prisoner

    reasonable

    satisfies

    jurists

    would

    this

    28 U.S.C.
    standard

    find

    that

    by
    any

    assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is


    debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by
    the district court is likewise debatable.

    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, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).

    We have

    independently reviewed the record and conclude that Moore has not
    made the requisite showing.

    Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed

    in forma pauperis, 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