UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7051

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RANDOLF MOORE, a/k/a Randy, a/k/a Booney,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (4:04-cv-00014-H; 4:95-cr-00041-H-7)

Submitted: November 13, 2012 Decided: November 15, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Randolf Moore, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Randolf Moore seeks to appeal the district court’s

orders denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from

the judgment in his

(West Supp. 2012)

proceeding, and the subsequent Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to

alter or amend. In order for Moore to pursue this appeal, a

circuit justice or judge must issue a certificate of

appealability.

(c)(1)(B) (2006); Reid v.

Angelone,

(4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of

the denial of a constitutional right.”

(c)(2)

(2006). 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,

(2000); see Miller-

El v. Cockrell,

(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 motion states a debatable claim of the

denial of a constitutional right. Slack,

.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude

that Moore has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability, deny Moore’s motion to

2 remand, 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

3