United States v. Ira Taylor , 677 F. App'x 110 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6980
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
IRA TAYLOR,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
Judge. (1:13-cr-00078-JFM-1; 1:15-cv-03747-JFM)
Submitted: February 16, 2017 Decided: February 21, 2017
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judge, and
HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ira Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin M. Block, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Debra Lynn Dwyer, Assistant United
States Attorney, Michael Clayton Hanlon, Assistant United States
Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland; Scott Andrew Lemmon, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina; Henry
Brandis Marsh, Jr., Assistant State’s Attorney, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ira Taylor seeks to appeal 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
Taylor 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
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3