Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William R. TAYLOR, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-01-10
Citations: 54 F. App'x 176
Docket Number: No. 02-7212
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William R. TAYLOR, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 54
Pages: 176–177

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William R. TAYLOR, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 02-7212.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 10, 2002.
Decided Jan. 10, 2003.
William R. Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Ronald Hood, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
William Raymond Taylor seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as untimely his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no error. See United States v. Taylor, Nos. CR-99-368; CA-02-4 (E.D.Va. Aug. 3, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (2000), and dismiss the appeal. We further deny Taylor's motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal and we also deny his motion to have transcripts prepared at the Government's expense because he has failed to show the existence of a substantial question in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 753(f) (2000). See also Maloney v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 396 F.2d 939 (D.C.Cir.1967). 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.