Filed: Oct. 12, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-6602 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MOYA VANTION MOORE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (4:10-cr-00046-BO-1; 4:13-cv-00247- BO) Submitted: October 4, 2018 Decided: October 12, 2018 Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Moy
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-6602 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MOYA VANTION MOORE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (4:10-cr-00046-BO-1; 4:13-cv-00247- BO) Submitted: October 4, 2018 Decided: October 12, 2018 Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Moya..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-6602
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MOYA VANTION MOORE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Greenville. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (4:10-cr-00046-BO-1; 4:13-cv-00247-
BO)
Submitted: October 4, 2018 Decided: October 12, 2018
Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Moya Vantion Moore, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Moya Vantion Moore appeals the district court’s order dismissing his motions as
successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motions. We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See
United States v. Moore, No. 4:10-cr-00046-BO-1 (E.D.N.C. May 3, 2018). We deny a
certificate of appealability as unnecessary. See United States v. McRae,
793 F.3d 392,
398-400 (4th Cir. 2015); cf. Harbison v. Bell,
556 U.S. 180, 194 (2009). 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.
AFFIRMED
2