Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Albert Gary TAYLOR, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-08-03
Citations: 140 F. App'x 487
Docket Number: No. 05-6426
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Albert Gary TAYLOR, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 140
Pages: 487–487

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Albert Gary TAYLOR, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-6426.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 20, 2005.
Decided: Aug. 3, 2005.
Albert Gary Taylor, Appellant pro se. Michael Edward Rich, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Albert Gary Taylor seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appeal-ability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (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, 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 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