Filed: Aug. 03, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6426 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ALBERT GARY TAYLOR, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-00-127; CA-03-573-1) Submitted: July 20, 2005 Decided: August 3, 2005 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Albert Gary
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6426 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ALBERT GARY TAYLOR, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-00-127; CA-03-573-1) Submitted: July 20, 2005 Decided: August 3, 2005 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Albert Gary ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6426
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ALBERT GARY TAYLOR,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (CR-00-127; CA-03-573-1)
Submitted: July 20, 2005 Decided: August 3, 2005
Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Albert Gary Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Edward Rich, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
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 appealability. 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 (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 -