Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06526/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06526-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Taylor Tyer
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6526

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JOHN TAYLOR TYER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior

District Judge. (5:10-cr-00238-F-3; 5:13-cv-00449-F)

Submitted: June 25, 2015 Decided: June 30, 2015

Before GREGORY, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Taylor Tyer, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Jennifer E. Wells, OFFICE OF THE 

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6526 Doc: 9 Filed: 06/30/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

John Taylor Tyer seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

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

is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (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 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 

Tyer 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

Appeal: 15-6526 Doc: 9 Filed: 06/30/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-6526 Doc: 9 Filed: 06/30/2015 Pg: 3 of 3