Taylor v. Smith

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Taylor v. Smith

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-6985

JOHN R. TAYLOR, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

ROBERT W. SMITH,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-02-168-5-HO)

Submitted: August 28, 2003 Decided: September 10, 2003

Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John R. Taylor, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

John R. Taylor, Jr., a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the

district court’s order denying his petition filed under

28 U.S.C. § 2254

(2000), as untimely. 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 also are

debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322

, ,

123 S. Ct. 1029, 1039

(2003); Slack v. McDaniel,

529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee,

252 F.3d 676, 683

(4th Cir.), cert. denied,

534 U.S. 941

(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

Reference

Status
Unpublished