Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Patrick Dennis TAYLOR, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-04-14
Citations: 182 F. App'x 153
Docket Number: No. 05-7598
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Patrick Dennis TAYLOR, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 182
Pages: 153–154

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Patrick Dennis TAYLOR, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-7598.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted March 22, 2006.
Decided April 14, 2006.
Patrick Dennis Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Andrew Bassford, Office of the United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Patrick Dennis Taylor seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The order is not appealable 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 absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitu tional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find 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, 336-38, 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, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED