United States v. Moody , 156 F. App'x 584 ( 2005 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6756
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CHRISTOPHER LEE MOODY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
District Judge. (CR-01-452; CA-03-1083)
Submitted: November 22, 2005 Decided: December 2, 2005
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Christopher Lee Moody, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa Blue Boggs,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Christopher Lee Moody seeks to appeal the district
court’s order adopting the recommendation of a magistrate judge and
denying 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.
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner
satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists
would find 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
(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 Moody 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
*
We do not address Moody’s illegal vehicle stop claim as this
claim is raised for the first time on appeal. See Muth v. United
States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993) (holding that issues raised
for the first time on appeal are generally waived absent
exceptional circumstances).
- 2 -