Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christopher TAYLOR, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-10-07
Citations: 145 F. App'x 421
Docket Number: No. 05-6505
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christopher TAYLOR, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 145
Pages: 421–422

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christopher TAYLOR, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-6505.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 16, 2005.
Decided Oct. 7, 2005.
Christopher Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Christine Blaise Hamilton, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Christopher Taylor, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his "Notice of Motion to Dismiss," which was essentially a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find both that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Tay lor 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED