US v. Michael Taylor
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:99-cr-00013-MR-1,2:02-cv-00229-LHT Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999546224]. Mailed to: Hoefling, Taylor, Youngs. [14-7448]
Appeal: 14-7448
Doc: 11
Filed: 03/16/2015
Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7448
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL 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.
(2:99-cr-00013-MR-1; 2:02-cv-00229LHT)
Submitted:
March 12, 2015
Decided:
March 16, 2015
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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 14-7448
Doc: 11
Filed: 03/16/2015
Pg: 2 of 2
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
§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).
issue
absent
“a
of
appealability.
28
U.S.C.
A certificate of appealability will not
substantial
constitutional right.”
See
showing
of
the
denial
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).
of
a
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
Cockrell,
(2000);
(2003).
see
Miller-El
v.
537
U.S.
322,
336-38
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.
a
certificate
dispense
of
with
contentions
are
appealability
oral
argument
adequately
and
dismiss
because
presented
Accordingly, we deny
in
the
the
the
appeal.
facts
We
and
legal
materials
before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2
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?