US v. Ira Taylor

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:13-cr-00078-JFM-1,1:15-cv-03747-JFM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000026536]. Mailed to: Ira Taylor FCI FAIRTON FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION P. O. Box 420 Fairton, NJ 08320-0000. [16-6980]

Appeal: 16-6980

Doc: 13

Filed: 02/21/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6980

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

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
Judge. (1:13-cr-00078-JFM-1; 1:15-cv-03747-JFM)

Submitted:

February 16, 2017

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and
HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Decided:

DUNCAN,

February 21, 2017

Circuit

Judge,

and

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ira Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin M. Block, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Debra Lynn Dwyer, Assistant United
States Attorney, Michael Clayton Hanlon, Assistant United States
Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland; Scott Andrew Lemmon, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina; Henry
Brandis Marsh, Jr., Assistant State’s Attorney, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6980

Doc: 13

Filed: 02/21/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Ira

Taylor

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

court’s

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.

order

The order

is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability.
A

certificate

of

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).

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

U.S.

that

the

claims

constitutional
529

by

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

motion

states

claim of the denial of a constitutional right.

a

debatable

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: 16-6980

Doc: 13

contentions

are

Filed: 02/21/2017

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3