Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael TAYLOR, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-03-16
Citations: 597 F. App'x 177
Docket Number: No. 14-7448
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael TAYLOR, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before GREGORY, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 597
Pages: 177–178

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael TAYLOR, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-7448.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 12, 2015.
Decided: March 16, 2015.
Michael Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Richard Ascik, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina; Jennifer A. Youngs, Assistant United States Attorney, Jennifer Marie Hoe-fling, Office of the United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before GREGORY, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael Taylor seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion to amend his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (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 petition 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 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.