Furman Taylor, Jr. v. Charles Williams ( 2023 )

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7705 Doc: 10 Filed: 07/17/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-7705
FURMAN EUGENE TAYLOR, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant
v.
CHARLES WILLIAMS, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort.
Terry L. Wooten, Senior District Judge. (9:21-cv-01186-TLW)
Submitted: June 1, 2023 Decided: July 17, 2023
Before KING, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Furman Eugene Taylor, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-7705 Doc: 10 Filed: 07/17/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Furman Eugene Taylor, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Taylor’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254petition. 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). 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, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74
(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 petition
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 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 contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
2