Opinion
No. 18-6271
07-25-2018
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ANTONIO MOSLEY, a/k/a Abdullah Hamid, Defendant - Appellant.
Antonio Mosley, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:11-cr-00336-RJC-1; 3:14-cv-00399-RJC) Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Antonio Mosley, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Antonio Mosley seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of 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 Mosley has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Mosley's motion for a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We also deny the pending motions for appointment of counsel, motion for bail or release pending appeal, and motion to expand a certificate of appealability. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED