Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06710/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06710-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert Hampton Taylor
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Robert Hampton Taylor seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order dismissing as successive 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 

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 and legal contentions are 

Appeal: 16-6710 Doc: 11 Filed: 11/04/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 16-6710 Doc: 11 Filed: 11/04/2016 Pg: 3 of 3