United States of America v. Michael James Taylor

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-6943
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL JAMES TAYLOR,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina,
at Bryson City. Martin K. Reidinger, District Judge. (2:11-cr-00022-MR-DLH-10; 1:16-
cv-00024-MR)
Submitted: February 26, 2019 Decided: March 1, 2019
Before KING, THACKER, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael James Taylor, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Michael James 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 deny Taylor’s motion for appointment of counsel and 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 of 2 --