Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Taylor, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Johnnie Robert Taylor's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. A certificate of appealability is required to appeal a § 2255 denial, which requires demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find the constitutional claims debatable. The court independently reviewed the record and found that Taylor did not make this requisite showing. As such, the court denied Taylor's motion for transcripts, motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2004-12-15 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 04-6762

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Johnnie Robert Taylor's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. A certificate of appealability is required to appeal a § 2255 denial, which requires demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find the constitutional claims debatable. The court independently reviewed the record and found that Taylor did not make this requisite showing. As such, the court denied Taylor's motion for transcripts, motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    6 views2 pages

    United States v. Taylor, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Johnnie Robert Taylor's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. A certificate of appealability is required to appeal a § 2255 denial, which requires demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find the constitutional claims debatable. The court independently reviewed the record and found that Taylor did not make this requisite showing. As such, the court denied Taylor's motion for transcripts, motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 04-6762

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    JOHNNIE ROBERT TAYLOR,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District


    District of North Carolina, at Durham.
    District Judge. (CR-01-37; CA-02-836-1)

    Submitted:

    December 9, 2004

    Court for the Middle


    James A. Beaty, Jr.,

    Decided:

    December 15, 2004

    Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Johnnie Robert Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Jane Hairston,


    Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Johnnie

    Robert

    Taylor

    seeks

    to

    appeal

    the

    district

    courts orders accepting the recommendations of the magistrate


    judge and denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. 2255
    (2000).

    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).

    certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial


    showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

    2253(c)(2)

    demonstrating
    constitutional

    (2000).
    that

    prisoner

    reasonable

    claims

    are

    satisfies

    jurists

    debatable

    and

    would
    that

    this

    28 U.S.C.
    standard

    find
    any

    that

    by
    his

    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 Taylors motion for transcripts and his motion
    for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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 -

    You might also like