Court Opinion

ID: 1017239
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 22:02:04.327159+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:41.820162
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 05-6505

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                             Plaintiff -   Appellee,

          versus

CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR,

                                             Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (CR-93-58)

Submitted:   September 16, 2005           Decided:   October 7, 2005

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Christine Blaise Hamilton,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

            Christopher Taylor, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal

the   district   court’s   order   denying    his   “Notice   of   Motion   to

Dismiss,” which was essentially a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000) motion.    An appeal may not be taken from the final order in

a § 2255 proceeding 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 for claims addressed by

a district court 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 both 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 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (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

                                   - 2 -