US v. Benjamine Moss, Jr.

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 26-6108

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

BENJAMINE MOSS, JR., a/k/a BJ,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:21-cr-00088-D-1; 5:24-cv-00641-D)

Submitted: July 16, 2026 Decided: July 21, 2026

Before WILKINSON, RICHARDSON, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Benjamine Moss, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

PER CURIAM:
Benjamine Moss, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his
28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). 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). When the 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. See Buck v.
Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (2017). 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.
Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,
484 (2000)).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Moss 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 contentions are

*
The district court summarily adopted the reasoning in the Government’s
memorandum in support of its motion to dismiss without offering an independent
explanation for dismissing Moss’s § 2255 motion. Although the district court should have
enumerated the issues Moss raised and explained its reasons for denying relief, see United
States v. Marr, 856 F.2d 1471, 1472-73 (10th Cir. 1988), we are able to conclude through
our independent review of the record that Moss has not made the requisite showing for a
certificate of appealability.

3

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