UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7710

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

MICHAEL L. MOORE, a/k/a Gadget,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (1:97-cr-00362-JCC-1; 1:06-cv-01445-JCC)

Submitted: January 23, 2014 Decided: January 28, 2014

Before WILKINSON and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael L. Moore, Appellant Pro Se. Shane Neel Cralle, Emily Mintz, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Thomas More Hollenhorst, Raymond Edward Patricco, Jr., Assistant United States Attorneys, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Michael L. Moore seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his

(2012) motion. The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues

a certificate of appealability.

(c)(1)(B)

(2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”

(c)(2) (2012). 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 and dismiss the appeal. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

2 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3