US v. Douglas G. Taylor

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999685131-2] Originating case number: 1:13-cr-00316-LMB-1,1:15-cv-00687-LMB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999764051]. Mailed to: Taylor. [15-7236]

Appeal: 15-7236

Doc: 10

Filed: 02/29/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7236

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DOUGLAS G. TAYLOR, a/k/a Bo Taylor,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Leonie M. Brinkema,
District Judge. (1:13-cr-00316-LMB-1; 1:15-cv-00687-LMB)

Submitted:

February 25, 2016

Before SHEDD and
Circuit Judge.

HARRIS,

Circuit

Decided:

Judges,

February 29, 2016

and

DAVIS,

Senior

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Douglas G. Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Robert K. Coulter, Mark D.
Lytle, Assistant United States Attorneys, Alexandria, Virginia,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7236

Doc: 10

Filed: 02/29/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Douglas

G.

Taylor

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and
has filed a motion for appointment of counsel.
court’s order

is

not

judge

a

certificate

issues

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
issue

absent

“a

appealable
of

a

circuit

justice

appealability.

28

or

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

unless

The district

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 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

Taylor’s motion for appointment of counsel, deny a certificate
of appealability, and dismiss the appeal.

We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
2

Appeal: 15-7236

Doc: 10

Filed: 02/29/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3