Darryl Taylor v. James Smith

Filing 920090626

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7125 DARRYL TAYLOR, Petitioner - Appellant, v. JAMES SMITH, Warden; DOUGLAS GANSLER, The Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:05-cv-01179-RDB) Submitted: June 4, 2009 Decided: June 26, 2009 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Lawlor, LAWLOR & ENGLERT, LLC, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Edward John Kelley, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Darryl Taylor, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. Although we initially dismissed this appeal on the ground that Taylor failed to file a timely notice of appeal, we granted Taylor's rehearing petition and have considered the merits of the appeal. has failed to meet We now dismiss the appeal because Taylor the standard for the issuance of a certificate of appealability. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). prisoner reasonable satisfies jurists this would standard find both by that demonstrating his A that constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller- El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Taylor has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we We deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 2 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 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?