4th Cir.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. EDWARD MOORE, JR

April 10, 2026 ·24-7141 ·Per Curiam · By James Taylor

The Fourth Circuit denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed Edward Moore, Jr.'s appeal from his § 2255 denial because he failed to make a substantial showing that reasonable jurists could find the district court's assessment debatable or wrong. The court independently reviewed the record and found no constitutional error warranting further review, leaving the district court's denial of relief in place.

Edward Moore, Jr., proceeding pro se, sought to appeal a district court order that denied relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. This motion is the primary mechanism for federal prisoners to challenge the legality of their sentences or convictions. Before an appeal can proceed from a denial of a § 2255 motion, the prisoner must obtain a certificate of appealability from a circuit judge or justice. Moore also filed a motion to exceed length limitations for his informal brief, which the Fourth Circuit granted. However, the threshold issue remained whether he could meet the statutory standard required to move forward with his appeal.

The court applied the standard set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) and (c)(2), which requires a certificate of appealability only if there is a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. The court explained that when a district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong, citing Buck v. Davis. The court noted that if the denial were on procedural grounds, the prisoner would need to show both that the procedural ruling was debatable and that the underlying claim was debatable, citing Gonzalez v. Thaler. After independently reviewing the record, the court concluded that Moore had not made the requisite showing to meet this high bar. Consequently, the court determined that no certificate of appealability should issue.

The appeal is terminated without oral argument, and the district court's denial of Moore's § 2255 motion remains in effect. This decision reinforces the high threshold required for federal prisoners to proceed with appeals after a § 2255 denial, emphasizing that the appellate court will not grant a certificate of appealability unless there is a substantial showing that the district court's assessment was debatable or wrong. No further review is available on this appeal unless new grounds arise that meet the statutory standard.