From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Taylor

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Sep 10, 2010
394 F. App'x 980 (4th Cir. 2010)

Opinion

No. 10-6255.

Submitted: August 19, 2010.

Decided: September 10, 2010.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph R. Goodwin, Chief District Judge. (2:08-cr-00222-1; 2:09-cv-00826).

Samuel Solomon Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Monica Lynn Dillon, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


Samuel Solomon Taylor seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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, 120 S.Ct. 1595. 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED.


Summaries of

U.S. v. Taylor

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Sep 10, 2010
394 F. App'x 980 (4th Cir. 2010)
Case details for

U.S. v. Taylor

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Samuel Solomon TAYLOR…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Date published: Sep 10, 2010

Citations

394 F. App'x 980 (4th Cir. 2010)