Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donnell Alexander TAYLOR, a/k/a Juice, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-06-25
Citations: 385 F. App'x 317
Docket Number: No. 10-4154
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donnell Alexander TAYLOR, a/k/a Juice, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 385
Pages: 317–317

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donnell Alexander TAYLOR, a/k/a Juice, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-4154.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 17, 2010.
Decided: June 25, 2010.
Donnell Alexander Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. C. Nicks Williams, Office of the United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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 ap-pealability 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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, 120 S.Ct. 1595. 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 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.