Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Ebey TAYLOR, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-08-28
Citations: 696 F. App'x 651
Docket Number: No. 17-6015
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Ebey TAYLOR, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 696
Pages: 651–652

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Ebey TAYLOR, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-6015
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: August 24, 2017
Decided: August 28, 2017
Robert Ebey Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Ethan A. Ontjes, Donald Russell Pender, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Robert Ebey Taylor 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 certifícate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2258(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, 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, although we grant Taylor's motion to amend page three of his informal brief, we deny a certifícate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented.in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED