Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-10-04154/USCOURTS-ca4-10-04154-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Donnell Alexander Taylor
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-4154

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

DONNELL ALEXANDER TAYLOR, a/k/a Juice,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, 

District Judge. (3:05-cr-00297-FDW-DCK-1; 3:09-cv-00089-FDW)

Submitted: June 17, 2010 Decided: June 25, 2010

Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donnell Alexander Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. C. Nicks Williams, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, 

for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-4154 Doc: 9 Filed: 06/25/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Donnell Alexander Taylor seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 

(West Supp. 2010) motion. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). 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 (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 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

Appeal: 10-4154 Doc: 9 Filed: 06/25/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 10-4154 Doc: 9 Filed: 06/25/2010 Pg: 3 of 3