Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07448/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07448-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Taylor
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7448

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MICHAEL TAYLOR,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Bryson City. Martin K. 

Reidinger, District Judge. (2:99-cr-00013-MR-1; 2:02-cv-00229-

LHT)

Submitted: March 12, 2015 Decided: March 16, 2015

Before GREGORY, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Richard Ascik, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina; 

Jennifer A. Youngs, Assistant United States Attorney, Jennifer 

Marie Hoefling, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, 

North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7448 Doc: 11 Filed: 03/16/2015 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael Taylor seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

denying his motion to amend his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. 

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 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). 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 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. Accordingly, we deny 

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 14-7448 Doc: 11 Filed: 03/16/2015 Pg: 2 of 2