Opinion
No. 14-7448
03-16-2015
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MICHAEL TAYLOR, Defendant - Appellant.
Michael Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Richard Ascik, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina; Jennifer A. Youngs, Assistant United States Attorney, Jennifer Marie Hoefling, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Bryson City. Martin K. Reidinger, District Judge. (2:99-cr-00013-MR-1; 2:02-cv-00229-LHT) Before GREGORY, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Richard Ascik, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina; Jennifer A. Youngs, Assistant United States Attorney, Jennifer Marie Hoefling, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Michael Taylor seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion to amend his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. 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 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED