US v. Robert Taylor

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion to consolidate case denied as moot. (Local Rule 12(b)) [999857981-2], Certificate of appealability denied. Originating case number: 5:07-cr-00324-D-1,5:15-cv-00397-D. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999962433]. Mailed to: Robert Hampton Taylor. [16-6710]

Appeal: 16-6710

Doc: 11

Filed: 11/04/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6710

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROBERT HAMPTON TAYLOR,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Dever III,
Chief District Judge. (5:07-cr-00324-D-1; 5:15-cv-00397-D)

Submitted:

October 25, 2016

Decided:

November 4, 2016

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Hampton Taylor, Appellant Pro Se.
Jane J. Jackson,
Assistant United States Attorney, Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6710

Doc: 11

Filed: 11/04/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Robert Hampton Taylor seeks to appeal the district court’s
order

dismissing

motion.
judge

as

successive

28

U.S.C.

§ 2255

(2012)

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
issue

his

absent

“a

of

28

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

appealability.

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

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

We also

deny as moot Taylor’s motion to consolidate. We dispense with
oral

argument

because

the

facts

2

and

legal

contentions

are

Appeal: 16-6710

Doc: 11

adequately

Filed: 11/04/2016

presented

in

the

Pg: 3 of 3

materials

before

this

court

and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

3