United States of America v. Opio Diarra Moore, a/k/a O

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7917
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
OPIO DIARRA MOORE, a/k/a O,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge.
(8:08-cr-00203-RWT-1; 8:13-cv-03589-RWT)
Submitted: May 31, 2016 Decided: June 3, 2016
Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Opio Diarra Moore, Appellant Pro Se. Deborah A. Johnston,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland; Michael
Richard Pauze, Assistant United States Attorney, Washington,
D.C.; Christen Anne Sproule, Assistant United States Attorney,
Los Angeles, California, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Opio Diarra Moore seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.
The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) (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, 529 U.S. 473,
484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38
(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,
529 U.S. at 484-85.
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 of 3 --

3
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --