Telvon Taylor v. Dallas Jone

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--updating certificate of appealability status Originating case number: 1:16-cv-00438-WMN Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999864662]. Mailed to: Telvon Taylor. [16-6334]

Appeal: 16-6334

Doc: 7

Filed: 06/23/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6334

TELVON TAYLOR,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
DALLAS B. JONES, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
William M. Nickerson, Senior District
Judge. (1:16-cv-00438-WMN)

Submitted:

June 21, 2016

Decided:

June 23, 2016

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Telvon Taylor, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6334

Doc: 7

Filed: 06/23/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Telvon Taylor seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition.
not

appealable

certificate
(2012).

of

unless

a

circuit

appealability.

justice

See

28

or

The order is

judge

U.S.C.

issues

a

§ 2253(c)(1)(A)

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).
relief

on

the

demonstrating
district

merits,
that

court’s

debatable

or

a

When the district court denies

prisoner

reasonable

assessment

wrong.

satisfies

jurists

would

of

the

v.

McDaniel,

Slack

this

standard

find

constitutional
529

U.S.

by

that

the

claims

is

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.
a

certificate

dispense

with

of

appealability

oral

argument

and

dismiss

because

2

Accordingly, we deny

the

the

appeal.

facts

and

We
legal

Appeal: 16-6334

Doc: 7

contentions

Filed: 06/23/2016

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3