FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit

NOV 3 2004

PATRICK FISHER
Clerk

	UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MALCOLM EUGENE MOORE,

Defendant - Appellant.	No. 04-5076
(D.C. No. 01-CV-336-H)
(N.D. Okla.)	

ORDER

Before EBEL, MURPHY, and McCONNELL, Circuit Judges.

	Defendant‑appellant Malcolm Moore seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s decision denying him 28 U.S.C. § 2255 relief from his three convictions for bank robbery, and aiding and abetting bank robbery, see 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 2113, and his three convictions for using a firearm during the commission of a crime of violence, and aiding and abetting this use of a firearm, see 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 924(c).  On appeal, Moore argues that 1) the district court erred in imposing consecutive sentences for his three firearm convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)
; and 2) the indictment failed to specify whether Moore was charged as an aider and abettor under 18 U.S.C. §2(a) or § 2(b).  
	Moore must obtain a COA to pursue this appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B).  To be entitled to a COA, he must make a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”  Id. § 2253(c)(2).  To make this showing, Moore must establish that “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved [by the district court] in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.”  Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000) (quotations omitted).  Moore has failed to make that showing.  For substantially the reasons relied upon by the district court, therefore, we DENY Moore a COA and DISMISS this appeal.   

						ENTERED FOR THE COURT

						David M. Ebel
						Circuit Judge