Telvon Taylor v. Dallas Jones ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 16-6334
    TELVON TAYLOR,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    DALLAS B. JONES, Warden,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore.   William M. Nickerson, Senior District
    Judge. (1:16-cv-00438-WMN)
    Submitted:   June 21, 2016                 Decided:   June 23, 2016
    Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Telvon Taylor, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Telvon Taylor seeks to appeal the district court’s order
    dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition.                              The order is
    not   appealable        unless    a   circuit      justice        or    judge    issues     a
    certificate      of    appealability.           See    28   U.S.C.       § 2253(c)(1)(A)
    (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 petition 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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 16-6334

Judges: Duncan, Keenan, Per Curiam, Thacker

Filed Date: 6/23/2016

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024